BA010 BKK-LHR Divert
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jumbo Driver
It certainly wouldn't make sense for an aircraft to depart with discharged bottles if either compartment was loaded - I would expect that to be contrary to the MMEL.
regards
Last edited by hetfield; 22nd Apr 2006 at 09:00.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The -400 MEL does allow dispatch without hold fire suppression as long as the holds are completely emtpy.
Assuming no obstacles, no passengers and no freight/baggage the -400 would have no problem at all in using a 2400m runway.
Assuming no obstacles, no passengers and no freight/baggage the -400 would have no problem at all in using a 2400m runway.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some MEL's are a bit unclear.
If cargo fire systems are inop (apart from a single loop fail), hold needs to be empty, because most items can burn.
Another point, if cargo door seals or cargo linings are less than servicable, hold needs to be empty.
If cargo fire systems are inop (apart from a single loop fail), hold needs to be empty, because most items can burn.
Another point, if cargo door seals or cargo linings are less than servicable, hold needs to be empty.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fire detection system draws air from the holds over 2 "loop" smoke detectors. Smoke needs to be detcted by both loops before a fire warning is annunciated.
Note this system is not using the hold temperature to detect a fire although the temperature can be viewed on the EICAS ECS page by the flight crew.
If one of the smoke detector "loops" is faulty, the MEL allows it to be effectively locked out and the aircraft dispatched normally. In this case only one detctor needs to detect the smoke to trigger a fire warning.
If both smoke detector loops are faulty or the fire extinguishers cannot be fired for any reason, then the holds must be kept empty.
At least that's how I understand it ....................................
Note this system is not using the hold temperature to detect a fire although the temperature can be viewed on the EICAS ECS page by the flight crew.
If one of the smoke detector "loops" is faulty, the MEL allows it to be effectively locked out and the aircraft dispatched normally. In this case only one detctor needs to detect the smoke to trigger a fire warning.
If both smoke detector loops are faulty or the fire extinguishers cannot be fired for any reason, then the holds must be kept empty.
At least that's how I understand it ....................................
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what the airbus MEL says (two bottles):
Both may be inoperative provided flammable or combustible cargo is not carried in the affected compartment.
So BOEING is more restrictiv.
Both may be inoperative provided flammable or combustible cargo is not carried in the affected compartment.
So BOEING is more restrictiv.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JumpAhead
Tricky to know that there is nothing flammable if you have 20 tonnes of cargo/bags in ULDs and on pallets!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree a NOTOC should be supplied for notifiable goods.
Just making the point that anything in the hold poses some risk .....
Last time I looked in an "empty" hold it was full of rubbish such as old bagage labels, bits of tie-down rope etc. I think there was an Air Canada 767 a number of years ago that had just such rubbish set alight by a faulty water heater mat. Fortunately it happened on approach.
Just making the point that anything in the hold poses some risk .....
Last time I looked in an "empty" hold it was full of rubbish such as old bagage labels, bits of tie-down rope etc. I think there was an Air Canada 767 a number of years ago that had just such rubbish set alight by a faulty water heater mat. Fortunately it happened on approach.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JumpAhead
Agree a NOTOC should be supplied for notifiable goods.
Just making the point that anything in the hold poses some risk .....
Last time I looked in an "empty" hold it was full of rubbish such as old bagage labels, bits of tie-down rope etc.
Just making the point that anything in the hold poses some risk .....
Last time I looked in an "empty" hold it was full of rubbish such as old bagage labels, bits of tie-down rope etc.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you can get water to burn in the right conditions.
Many aircraft have operated with inop fire systems and items in the holds thinking it complied with the MEL.
Hold should be empty and clean.
Many aircraft have operated with inop fire systems and items in the holds thinking it complied with the MEL.
Hold should be empty and clean.
Originally Posted by Flightrider
The other factor is that the runway [Uralsk] is probably one of the bumpiest in living memory .
Must be a feature of old Soviet runways.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, but please correct me, sticking strictly to airbus MEL, carriage of luggage would be possible in this case.
Personally I would be reluctant to depart with anything in the hold that could burn if I had no way of putting it out.
Now that this one seems to have died down, can I ask a genuine question to the ops people from BA writing above.
Did you feel it really was the most effective way to handle things, to do this recovery with your own aircraft. Interesting to read all the convoluted arrangements described above, and the apparent urgency to get the relief aircraft out to Uralsk.
But would it not have been more effective to have chartered a widebody from one of the several Moscow charter operators ? Much of their capacity seems to hang round the Moscow airports waiting for business, and they know Kazakstan. Could be in Uralsk in 3 hours, and then hike everybody over to London. No problem on an Il86 with lack of steps, they have airstairs to the baggage level and a staircase inside up to the cabin.
Did you feel it really was the most effective way to handle things, to do this recovery with your own aircraft. Interesting to read all the convoluted arrangements described above, and the apparent urgency to get the relief aircraft out to Uralsk.
But would it not have been more effective to have chartered a widebody from one of the several Moscow charter operators ? Much of their capacity seems to hang round the Moscow airports waiting for business, and they know Kazakstan. Could be in Uralsk in 3 hours, and then hike everybody over to London. No problem on an Il86 with lack of steps, they have airstairs to the baggage level and a staircase inside up to the cabin.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM
Althouth I'm not BA ops but based on my extensive experience of handling similar things I can tell you a few problems in your scenario:
1. Insurance. Russian carriers (excl some majors) have a different insurance policy and even then it is hard to get any compensation. If something happens it would cost BA a fortune in lawsuits.
2. Service standarts. Most of operational IL86s are deployed on charter routes and in a pretty sad state inside. If someone think that *unnamed* G-registered charter 767s are cr@@ inside they never seen Russian charter planes.
3. Believe me - the realistic time take to get IL86 airborne from Moscow is 12 hours or more from signed contract. IL86 operators are not specializing on a short-notice business.
4. IL86s are banned from Europe due to Stage II anyway.
5. Potentially there could be some passengers onboard who cannot travel on Russian airlines apart from a few majors like SU or UN due their corporate insurance policy.
6. It is usually cheaper to fly your own airplanes (if availability and timescale allows) than chartering someone else.
On the other hand there is VIM Airlines in Russia operating a fleet of 757s (tight charter config anyway) who are normally quick to react and there is Transaero with ex-Virgin 747s and well known for changing the planes assignment between routes on an hourly basis. One of them or combination of them may work but introduces some problems and uncertaincy anyway, let alone the cost, so from my point of view BA ops did it in the right way. 
Althouth I'm not BA ops but based on my extensive experience of handling similar things I can tell you a few problems in your scenario:
1. Insurance. Russian carriers (excl some majors) have a different insurance policy and even then it is hard to get any compensation. If something happens it would cost BA a fortune in lawsuits.
2. Service standarts. Most of operational IL86s are deployed on charter routes and in a pretty sad state inside. If someone think that *unnamed* G-registered charter 767s are cr@@ inside they never seen Russian charter planes.
3. Believe me - the realistic time take to get IL86 airborne from Moscow is 12 hours or more from signed contract. IL86 operators are not specializing on a short-notice business.
4. IL86s are banned from Europe due to Stage II anyway.
5. Potentially there could be some passengers onboard who cannot travel on Russian airlines apart from a few majors like SU or UN due their corporate insurance policy.
6. It is usually cheaper to fly your own airplanes (if availability and timescale allows) than chartering someone else.
On the other hand there is VIM Airlines in Russia operating a fleet of 757s (tight charter config anyway) who are normally quick to react and there is Transaero with ex-Virgin 747s and well known for changing the planes assignment between routes on an hourly basis
. One of them or combination of them may work but introduces some problems and uncertaincy anyway, let alone the cost, so from my point of view BA ops did it in the right way.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been stated that the aircraft landed in about 30 minutes. Is this typical? What would have been the situation the warning had happened when over Siberia, Pacific, Northern Canada etc.
JumpAhead
I'm not sure what your point is - I guess the answer is that elsewhere, in the abscence of any indications of a genuine fire, they would not have landed in 30 minutes.....
Evertonian
Perhaps they landed in 30 minutes because they could land in 30 minutes. If it happened in the places you mentioned, I'm sure they would have gone for the closest suitable strip & failing that, perhaps ditched, or landed anywhere possible...makes you wonder though, what would the thought process be for a possible fire & no immediate runway available. Would you ditch or aim for a long road? Would you confirm the fire before taking such drastic action?
Buster
Agreed.
IMHO you run for the "nearest suitable airfield", be it 30 minutes or 180 minutes away...in any case you keep an eye on hold temps (EICAS) and floor temps (heavy P2 standing on the deck, shoes off
...cue "the boy stood on the burning deck etc"
If, god forbid, you get signs of a real fire then the Captain is going to have to make the Career defining decision....
IMHO you run for the "nearest suitable airfield", be it 30 minutes or 180 minutes away...in any case you keep an eye on hold temps (EICAS) and floor temps (heavy P2 standing on the deck, shoes off
...cue "the boy stood on the burning deck etc"If, god forbid, you get signs of a real fire then the Captain is going to have to make the Career defining decision....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: About 3000 below Midhurst SID I reckon
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An incident occured, the Captain made his decisions (correct ones in my eyes) and other parts of the BA team, be it management, ops, crew, etc did their part to ensure everyone got home, safe.