fire under control. would you continue?

[old,not bold]

many smoke incidents where the source is determined, dealt with, and there are no further issues.

unless the aircrew can be supremely confident that they know why it happened and that no consequent unseen damage has occurred

We're both saying the same thing!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The decision to Land as soon as possible vs Land as soon as practicable, is why the Captain gets the big bucks.

But the bottom line from my POV is that it in virtually all cases of a fire on board it would be impossible to be absolutely sure that the emergency is over.

The best and only course of action is to get on the ground. The degree of urgency will be dictated by the circumstances, but IMO in every case the landing should be done in such a manner as to not accrue unnecessary extra time in the air.

[Max Angle]

The wording in our manual and those of other airlines I have worked for basically says that if you can positively identify, isolate and extinguish a fire then the flight can continue.

So something like a waste bin or oven contents fire that has been put out and damped down etc. would meet that criteria, fire originating in a piece of equipment like the IFE or something behind a bulk head or other structure would certainly not and I would get on the ground ASAP.

[Big Pistons Forever]

With the universal smoking bans in place any small fire in a waste basket, etc would have had to be deliberately set. My immediate thought would be has the responsible party been identified and does he/ she present a danger to the flight. Personally I would inclined to divert to the nearest convient airport and let the police deal with the person.

[luvmuhud]

With the universal smoking bans in place any small fire in a waste basket, etc would have had to be deliberately set. My immediate thought would be has the responsible party been identified and does he/ she present a danger to the flight. Personally I would inclined to divert to the nearest convient airport and let the police deal with the person.

Certainly, if a passenger deliberately lit a fire onboard the aircraft, the Captain would have grounds to restrain them (cuffs etc), and divert if required.

There are, however, passengers smoking onboard aircraft (in the lavs) every single day...if the cigarettes are not extinguished properly, the butts can easily smolder in a bin. It is normal procedure for the cabin crew to search the lavatory bins for the offending cigarette after the LAV SMOKE caution has illuminated, but in most cases the butts have gone down the toilet.

[luvmuhud]

But the bottom line from my POV is that it in virtually all cases of a fire on board it would be impossible to be absolutely sure that the emergency is over.

The best and only course of action is to get on the ground. The degree of urgency will be dictated by the circumstances, but IMO in every case the landing should be done in such a manner as to not accrue unnecessary extra time in the air.

Another example from very recent history...a passenger seat started smoldering with visible smoke...after investigation, a cigarette lighter had been pushed in between the seat and seat back, and had ignited the seat lining. After the 'fire' was extinguished, the lighter was removed, and the seat was blocked off...should the crew have diverted? What if the only diversion field had no RFF? What if the diversion field had no ATC facility? Diversions may cost the airline hundreds of thousands of dollars, so they aren't undertaken lightly.

Safety First is a nice catch phrase, but if airlines TRULY put safety before the bottom line, they would rarely get airborne, and would certainly never make a profit. The MEL is a classic example...if safety was REALLY first, there would be no MEL...airliners would be fully serviceable, or would stay on the ground. It is all risk management. It is up to the crew to assess each situation on its merits, and use 'Airmanship' (the safe and EFFICIENT operation of the aircraft) to come up with a prudent course of action.

In the end, we have the comfort of another very important defence...the pilot has 'skin in the game'...if he is of sound mind, he will always want to save himself!

[Broomstick Flier]

Currently flying freighters, many times with CAO loads and the nasty lithium batteries.

In either way, after a fire, we would divert (and I would strongly suggest this to the skipper), regardless if this was an utilities fire (i.e. some galley oven short circuit or some blankets on the crew rest getting on fire) or some more serious instance, like cargo fire (controlled or uncontrolled) or a EE bay fire.

The difference is that the former would, the way I see it, allow for a more delayed decision, wait for a more convenient en route alternate? Perhaps press forward to the destination or the nearest airport with full support from the company? We would even have the luxury to contact dispatch or network control to see what they have to offer as a solution.

The latter would be treated on a very different manner, and the decision to land ASAP is, actually, a no-brainer. Problem is that some of our routes are very poorly served with en route alternates, and simply crash landing the bird would become a sensible option very fast, specially with the uncontrolled cargo fire scenario.

[luvmuhud]

The latter would be treated on a very different manner, and the decision to land ASAP is, actually, a no-brainer. Problem is that some of our routes are very poorly served with en route alternates, and simply crash landing the bird would become a sensible option very fast, specially with the uncontrolled cargo fire scenario.

I agree. A cargo fire or fire/smoke of unknown origin is a very different kettle of fish, and one that requires immediate action to descend and divert. Anecdotally, I believe there are still many crews who would remain at cruise altitude and attempt to trouble shoot this scenario, which IMO will lead to death for all aboard if indeed the fire is 'worst case'.