fire under control. would you continue?
Beau_Peep
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: India
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fire under control. would you continue?
Imagine a scenario of a smoke/fire in the cabin and controlled in time. no harm done.. would you still consider LAND ASAP or continue to the destination?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me, it depends (like most scenario based discussions!) on a number of factors, including the nature of the fire, and how far we are from the destination. How was the fire put out? How 'big' was the fire? Is there possible damage to systems from smoke/ash?
The '60 minutes' test (ie, how will my decisions appear if this flight ends up on 60 minutes) is always helpful!
The '60 minutes' test (ie, how will my decisions appear if this flight ends up on 60 minutes) is always helpful!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are you over land with decent airports...IE Indianapolis, IN USA?? LAND
land land land
are you over the pacific...head for the nearest decent airport and LAND, land land.
and be ready to ditch along the way.
remember, everything was under control before the fire and you had a fire...something aint right, LAND...better to be on the ground looking up wishing you were flying than be in the sky wishing you were on the ground
land land land
are you over the pacific...head for the nearest decent airport and LAND, land land.
and be ready to ditch along the way.
remember, everything was under control before the fire and you had a fire...something aint right, LAND...better to be on the ground looking up wishing you were flying than be in the sky wishing you were on the ground
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no line pilot, but even I know that even without the common-sense angle, experience has led SOPs to demand landing at the nearest suitable airport if there's even the slightest chance of there being a fire. Even if the crew appear to have extinguished it and the smoke has dissipated, there are just too many areas that are invisible from within the cabin to take that chance.
Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on ground.
Land ASAP !
Land ASAP !
A 737 had a very slight haze through the cabin recently. It smelled like burning. Pilots turned back, haze dissipated. Shortly after landing several passengers and one of the pilots needed oxygen and were taken to hospital with migrains. They were crook for two days.
If I have had a fire I assume it created some sort of smoke and I have no idea how that smoke is going to effect my pax and crew in half an hours time. Land ASAP is my answer.
If I have had a fire I assume it created some sort of smoke and I have no idea how that smoke is going to effect my pax and crew in half an hours time. Land ASAP is my answer.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fire under control. would you continue?
Thought i saw a youtube vid the other day with this scenario, except a fire in cockpit. They asked for a diversion, then when fire was extinguished, decided not to land at nearest airport. See if i can scrounge it up, gotta go to a wedding now though.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of 'LAND ASAP' calls here...I don't think I'd be running my LAND ASAP game plan (high speed arrival, minimum briefing, land on the nearest piece of concrete long enough to stop on) for ALL contained fires...would you really LAND ASAP for a minor fire in the cabin which has been quickly extinguished? (e.g. One of the Inflight Entertainment components starts smoking, power is isolated, and a squirt of BCF added for good measure...smoke dissipates, no further evidence of smoke/fire...would you really LAND ASAP for this?)
LAND ASAP certainly has its place, and I would initiate immediate diversion for all unidentified and/or uncontained fires, but maybe not for a contained cabin fire.
Again, for me, it depends.
LAND ASAP certainly has its place, and I would initiate immediate diversion for all unidentified and/or uncontained fires, but maybe not for a contained cabin fire.
Again, for me, it depends.
Luvmuhud, I think there may be different versions of land ASAP in people's minds. For me it is not necessarily
. In my mind it may be keeping everything as standard as possible into the diversion/return airport, or it could be more hell for leather as you describe. In the situation described I would be keeping everything as standard as possible into the nearest airport with no weather or performance issues so I see your point about that not being a classic LAND ASAP.
high speed arrival, minimum briefing, land on the nearest piece of concrete long enough to stop on
Double anker, my QRH says
So just saying you'd follow the checklist doesn't really preclude having to make the decision we are discussing.
Source is visually confirmed to be extinguished and the smoke or fumes are decreasing:
Continue the flight at the captain's discretion.
Restore unpowered items at the captain's discretion.
Continue the flight at the captain's discretion.
Restore unpowered items at the captain's discretion.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luvmuhud, I think there may be different versions of land ASAP in people's minds.
For unidentified smoke in the cabin, or a cargo smoke warning, I will begin an emergency descent and diversion ASAP, but probably would not for an identified and extinguished cabin fire. (disclaimer...it depends!
)
I am struggling to accept that any professional would not land asap as the default course of action, modified by circumstances which would include "fire so short-lived, of a known cause that cannot recur, and so small and insignificant that there can not be any conceivable consequences".
It appears that for some (OK, one poster) we need to add the word "safely" after land, but for the majority that's probably not necessary.
It appears that for some (OK, one poster) we need to add the word "safely" after land, but for the majority that's probably not necessary.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the Inflight Entertainment components starts smoking, power is isolated, and a squirt of BCF added for good measure...smoke dissipates, no further evidence of smoke/fire...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...modified by circumstances which would include "fire so short-lived, of a known cause that cannot recur, and so small and insignificant that there can not be any conceivable consequences...
The question initially posed was
a smoke/fire in the cabin and controlled in time
If you DO agree, then we are talking about scenarios ranging from a passenger who sets off a smoke detector in the toilet, to a ELI battery powered laptop fire in the overhead, to a full galley fire which has been extinguished.
I can assure you, if I carried out a diversion to an enroute ERA in the first case, I'd expect to be visiting my chief pilot for tea and biscuits!! (I'm an FO BTW, so the CN would be with me!)
A typical case in point was the Lufthansa cabin fire in 2003, which occurred while on final approach at Frankfurt (from memory!).
Following a mod to the IFE, a plug carrying 115VAC was not sealed, and because it was located in the lower dado area just above the cabin floor, took in air conditioning condensation water, shorted out and started a fire alongside a startled passenger in seat 24A.
The cabin crew extinguished the fire using portable extinguishers, there was no further smoke development, so the landing was finished normally, the aircraft was taxied to the gate, and passengers disembarked normally.
But what if that had happened during the cruise? Although the fire was quickly extinguished, and no more smoke was seen, would the crew have continued, or declared a Pan and landed asap?
What no-one can know in such circumstances is (a) exactly what caused the fire, and (b) whether the fire and/or the action taken to extinguish it has created another problem, eg a damaged essential electrical or hydraulic circuit.
So I submit that unless the aircrew can be supremely confident that they know why it happened and that no consequent unseen damage has occurred, landing asap (OK, safely) is the only proper action. The times when such confidence is justified will be extremely rare. Apart from deliberate arson, the ban on smoking means that nearly every airborne aircraft fire will be caused by an electrical fault, or probably a combination of electrical faults.
Without exhaustive investigation and testing, on the ground, by engineers, the precise cause of such fires cannot be known.
This, of course, is what many people are saying in this thread. But I sense that some would count that LH incident as a case where they would continue to destination (fire extinguished, no smoke, etc, what's the problem?) when in practice they could have no idea whatsoever about why it happened and what damage it did. It took a team of engineers some time to work that out.
Following a mod to the IFE, a plug carrying 115VAC was not sealed, and because it was located in the lower dado area just above the cabin floor, took in air conditioning condensation water, shorted out and started a fire alongside a startled passenger in seat 24A.
The cabin crew extinguished the fire using portable extinguishers, there was no further smoke development, so the landing was finished normally, the aircraft was taxied to the gate, and passengers disembarked normally.
But what if that had happened during the cruise? Although the fire was quickly extinguished, and no more smoke was seen, would the crew have continued, or declared a Pan and landed asap?
What no-one can know in such circumstances is (a) exactly what caused the fire, and (b) whether the fire and/or the action taken to extinguish it has created another problem, eg a damaged essential electrical or hydraulic circuit.
So I submit that unless the aircrew can be supremely confident that they know why it happened and that no consequent unseen damage has occurred, landing asap (OK, safely) is the only proper action. The times when such confidence is justified will be extremely rare. Apart from deliberate arson, the ban on smoking means that nearly every airborne aircraft fire will be caused by an electrical fault, or probably a combination of electrical faults.
Without exhaustive investigation and testing, on the ground, by engineers, the precise cause of such fires cannot be known.
This, of course, is what many people are saying in this thread. But I sense that some would count that LH incident as a case where they would continue to destination (fire extinguished, no smoke, etc, what's the problem?) when in practice they could have no idea whatsoever about why it happened and what damage it did. It took a team of engineers some time to work that out.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am struggling to accept that any professional would not land asap as the default course of action, modified by circumstances which would include "fire so short-lived, of a known cause that cannot recur, and so small and insignificant that there can not be any conceivable consequences".
It appears that for some (OK, one poster) we need to add the word "safely" after land, but for the majority that's probably not necessary.
It appears that for some (OK, one poster) we need to add the word "safely" after land, but for the majority that's probably not necessary.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I submit that unless the aircrew can be supremely confident that they know why it happened and that no consequent unseen damage has occurred, landing asap (OK, safely) is the only proper action.
I would be very wary of making a blanket statement to divert ASAP for a cabin smoke incident. We are in the flight deck because we can think 'outside the box' and judge each situation on its merits, but unfortunately, low experience and poor judgement on the flight deck is becoming more common, and if we implement 'hard and fast 'rules' we must be prepared that they will be executed without due consideration for the wider situation.
Last edited by luvmuhud; 23rd Sep 2013 at 11:41.