Inflight Emergency - Land at all cost?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inflight Emergency - Land at all cost?
I have just returned from my LPC/LOFT simulator check. During the LOFT we were given a cargo hold fire. We went through the checklist but the light remained on even after discharging the bottle in the hold.
The weather was marginal, CAT 1 minima but the cloud base was borderline. I briefed that whether or not we are visual, we shall land the plane (autoland). At minima we did not see any lights but as briefed we landed. I ordered an evacuation and that was the end.
Since the LOFT is not a check, we discussed the excercise. The instructor said that the decision whether to land or go around is indeed very subjective but would have done the same in real life.
I kept (still am) thinking about it. The only thing that is bothering me was the visibility factor. So here comes my question.
Should we still land (visual or not at minima) and evacuate in marginal to poor visibility conditions? My line of thought is that I'd better be on the ground where some help 'might' be readily available rather than to go around.
Would apppreciate your feedback on the matter.
The weather was marginal, CAT 1 minima but the cloud base was borderline. I briefed that whether or not we are visual, we shall land the plane (autoland). At minima we did not see any lights but as briefed we landed. I ordered an evacuation and that was the end.
Since the LOFT is not a check, we discussed the excercise. The instructor said that the decision whether to land or go around is indeed very subjective but would have done the same in real life.
I kept (still am) thinking about it. The only thing that is bothering me was the visibility factor. So here comes my question.
Should we still land (visual or not at minima) and evacuate in marginal to poor visibility conditions? My line of thought is that I'd better be on the ground where some help 'might' be readily available rather than to go around.
Would apppreciate your feedback on the matter.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, a perfect solution to a scenario that, were it for real, would probably end up killing you and your pax by cooking you all in the air. There's only one place for an aircraft with fire and that is on the ground. You had autoland available. Even with no more than a Cat1 ILS on the aircraft if I was on the centreline and the glideslop at DA I'd keep on coming down. As for evacuation in low viz, that's a hazard irrespective of whether you've just landed below minimums.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too think that landing is the correct decision.
I would however be in (slightly) less of a hurry then to evacuate the passengers.
A high percentage of fire warnings are subsequently proven to be false. In the described circumstances and at a good airport with reliable fire services available, if there were no evidence of fire (hot floors, smoke visible, etc) I would be tempted to ask for the fire services to thermally image the holds.
[Note: they must not open the holds with pax on board]
If they determined no heat source I would then choose to either proceed to gate or vacate the runway and disembark the passengers by steps to avoid the inevitable injuries that would be sustained in an evacuation.
If they determined a heat source or one subsequently became apparent, I would evacuate the aircraft by slides.
I would however be in (slightly) less of a hurry then to evacuate the passengers.
A high percentage of fire warnings are subsequently proven to be false. In the described circumstances and at a good airport with reliable fire services available, if there were no evidence of fire (hot floors, smoke visible, etc) I would be tempted to ask for the fire services to thermally image the holds.
[Note: they must not open the holds with pax on board]
If they determined no heat source I would then choose to either proceed to gate or vacate the runway and disembark the passengers by steps to avoid the inevitable injuries that would be sustained in an evacuation.
If they determined a heat source or one subsequently became apparent, I would evacuate the aircraft by slides.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under the sea
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have a fire indication the only action is to evacuate. Best decision based on the best information you have at the time and all... If you had a fire and did not or delayed an evac you would hang.
Can anyone cite an instance of a fatal accident during an autoland, blind or not? I can't think of one. I can think of many examples of aircraft lost to inflight fires. I think your risk management was sound.
I would however be in (slightly) less of a hurry then to evacuate the passengers.
A high percentage of fire warnings are subsequently proven to be false. In the described circumstances and at a good airport with reliable fire services available, if there were no evidence of fire (hot floors, smoke visible, etc) I would be tempted to ask for the fire services to thermally image the holds........
.....If they determined a heat source or one subsequently became apparent, I would evacuate the aircraft by slides.
Last edited by Blues&twos; 17th Jan 2007 at 21:16. Reason: Further thoughts..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most important point of all!
Thank you Sean Dell.
As for the original question, you may or may not have smoke in the cockpit with a cargo hold fire. But if you do, I'm sure you wouldn't second guess yourself as you seem to be after your sim session.
Good luck.
IMHO we must NOT pi$$ about with a fire warning.
Get the aircraft on the ground, then get the hell out. Yes, pax will most likely be injured in the evacuation, but they will be alive, not cooked. Fire in the aircraft is probably our most severe emergency - get the pax out ASAP, then argue the toss from a safe distance.
If you, Captain, made the wrong call, you erred on the side of safety and in any fair system will never be sanctioned for it.
At the end of the day, we are here to ensure pax safety and even if the airline gives the crew a hard time, they will be able to sleep nights knowing that their motive was correct.
Is anyone really brave (foolish?) enough to count on a fire warning being false???
Get the aircraft on the ground, then get the hell out. Yes, pax will most likely be injured in the evacuation, but they will be alive, not cooked. Fire in the aircraft is probably our most severe emergency - get the pax out ASAP, then argue the toss from a safe distance.
If you, Captain, made the wrong call, you erred on the side of safety and in any fair system will never be sanctioned for it.
At the end of the day, we are here to ensure pax safety and even if the airline gives the crew a hard time, they will be able to sleep nights knowing that their motive was correct.
Is anyone really brave (foolish?) enough to count on a fire warning being false???
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
You really should READ all that I said, not just bits in isolation. I did not advocate sitting twiddling my thumbs. I stated a set of conditions in which I may (slightly) delay evacuation.
They included:
No other indications of fire (no visible smoke, not abnormal conditions, no hot floors, etc)
Being at a good airport with good, reliable fire services (they would be at the aircraft as you came to a halt) with thermo-imaging equipment available, on a dedicated fire frequency and I would have already spoken to the fire chief before landing to give all details.
If those conditions were satisfied, then I would consider delaying an evacuation, not for ever, but for a brief period of time. It would take a competent fire crew probably about 30 seconds after coming to a halt to update you. If there are no visible flames, then that would leave plenty of time to evacuate the aircraft should it be necessary before it became an inferno, imho.
I am thinking about an LHR incident about 18 months ago when a XXX320 abandoned take off with an engine fire. The flight deck indications were of an engine still on fire after agent discharge, the fire team however, using thermal imaging said not to evacuate, as the fire was contained in the core. Good liaison resulted in the best result.
As I said, read the full post together and not bits in isolation.
You really should READ all that I said, not just bits in isolation. I did not advocate sitting twiddling my thumbs. I stated a set of conditions in which I may (slightly) delay evacuation.
They included:
No other indications of fire (no visible smoke, not abnormal conditions, no hot floors, etc)
Being at a good airport with good, reliable fire services (they would be at the aircraft as you came to a halt) with thermo-imaging equipment available, on a dedicated fire frequency and I would have already spoken to the fire chief before landing to give all details.
If those conditions were satisfied, then I would consider delaying an evacuation, not for ever, but for a brief period of time. It would take a competent fire crew probably about 30 seconds after coming to a halt to update you. If there are no visible flames, then that would leave plenty of time to evacuate the aircraft should it be necessary before it became an inferno, imho.
I am thinking about an LHR incident about 18 months ago when a XXX320 abandoned take off with an engine fire. The flight deck indications were of an engine still on fire after agent discharge, the fire team however, using thermal imaging said not to evacuate, as the fire was contained in the core. Good liaison resulted in the best result.
As I said, read the full post together and not bits in isolation.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but related.
As a captain of an aircraft, are you given a detailed manifest of all the cargo onboard?.
I know that you will obviously be informed of the weight, but I was wondering id you are also given a detailed itemised list of any dangerous goods carried, which could be pertinent in the event of a fire.
As a captain of an aircraft, are you given a detailed manifest of all the cargo onboard?.
I know that you will obviously be informed of the weight, but I was wondering id you are also given a detailed itemised list of any dangerous goods carried, which could be pertinent in the event of a fire.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topbunk is absolutely right. Consider in any emergency evacuation, you will have broken bones and a few serious injuries. If the situation is you have got on the ground safely, what next? It is correct to pause for a moment and try and find out what is going on in the cabin or externally before blowing the whistle, even with a fire warning going. I always get confirmation of visible smoke/flames or serious damage before blowing the whistle and initiating the evacuation. I see no need to get an evacuation going on possibly a false warning. Remember, the crew know that if a situation is catastrophic or uncontrollable, they are permitted the initiative to commence evacuation themselves without waiting for the order from the Captain. To have passengers hospitalised on a false warning to me smacks of being over-hasty.
419, you are, and the Captain has signed for it.
419, you are, and the Captain has signed for it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: N33 24.7 E36 30.8 E 36 30.8
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree with the decision to land a.s.a.p and evacuate the aircraft without delay.like someone said it is better to err on the safe side
question is ...with say cabin crew reporting hot floors..anyone have an idea about how long would it take before something major structurally goes down the drain?
question is ...with say cabin crew reporting hot floors..anyone have an idea about how long would it take before something major structurally goes down the drain?
Moderator
Interesting byproduct of fire situations is smoke.
I observed a demo some time ago by a well known manufacturer of cockpit crew protective smokey environment vision enhancing equipment (it would have been much easier to just say the name but I guess I have to practice what we preach with the defacto advertising thing).
Seeing (or, actually, not seeing) is believing.
The speed with which a smoke generator can totally obliterate the cockpit visibility is the stuff of raised eyebrows.
The other day I had a domestic microwave with a transformer failure.
The kitchen filled with significant smoke in a matter of seconds. Standard IA (flick the power switch at the meter outside) killed the problem. Then a bit of trouble shooting to isolate which circuit .. when I found the correct one, the regeneration of smoke was a real eye opener.
A fire might
(a) burn out important stuff like wings and through hull services
(b) even burn the bodies after the crash
but the smoke will take control from you far quicker.
If you think that you can troubleshoot cockpit smoke in flight consider that Ansett, years ago, had a fire in the 727 sim. As I recall (and I may have the detail a bit skewed) it took the techs several days to find the source ....
As the aforementioned OEM's advertising bumpf puts it .. "if you can't see, you can't fly". Nice folk as well.
I observed a demo some time ago by a well known manufacturer of cockpit crew protective smokey environment vision enhancing equipment (it would have been much easier to just say the name but I guess I have to practice what we preach with the defacto advertising thing).
Seeing (or, actually, not seeing) is believing.
The speed with which a smoke generator can totally obliterate the cockpit visibility is the stuff of raised eyebrows.
The other day I had a domestic microwave with a transformer failure.
The kitchen filled with significant smoke in a matter of seconds. Standard IA (flick the power switch at the meter outside) killed the problem. Then a bit of trouble shooting to isolate which circuit .. when I found the correct one, the regeneration of smoke was a real eye opener.
A fire might
(a) burn out important stuff like wings and through hull services
(b) even burn the bodies after the crash
but the smoke will take control from you far quicker.
If you think that you can troubleshoot cockpit smoke in flight consider that Ansett, years ago, had a fire in the 727 sim. As I recall (and I may have the detail a bit skewed) it took the techs several days to find the source ....
As the aforementioned OEM's advertising bumpf puts it .. "if you can't see, you can't fly". Nice folk as well.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gatwick
Age: 59
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
419
In the event of the carriage of dangerous goods a NOTOC (notice to captian) will be delivered to the flight deck and signed by the dispatcher and the Captain. This document will detail the nature of any dangerous goods carried so the crew are able to inform the emergency services of the contents of the cargo in the event of a problem. Hope this answers your query.
In the event of the carriage of dangerous goods a NOTOC (notice to captian) will be delivered to the flight deck and signed by the dispatcher and the Captain. This document will detail the nature of any dangerous goods carried so the crew are able to inform the emergency services of the contents of the cargo in the event of a problem. Hope this answers your query.