Rejected Takeoff Test A340. 3 fires one hose.
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stainless Steel B@lls
cargo boy, I agree with much of your post, and I do believe that the lone firefighter is equipped as stated above, even if he was stupid (& he may not have been) he was definitely brave. Also, I would never argue with you about flying the darned things as I am not a jet pilot, that is your bailiwick, not mine.
The reason that I don't want to call the lone fireman stupid is that I don't know who had the authority to decide when the test was a failure. Was it Airbus management? The pilots? The fire crew (with better visibility and experience with fires)? Another party? Don't know.
hobie:
Maybe. If they had such a tanker in position and ready to go. If they didn't have one, or had to wait for one to arrive they are better off to "get the wet stuff onto the hot stuff" as quickly as they could. Also, such a tanker would need to be able to project the water under the a/c effectively.
fred:
Here goes, I'll stick my neck out again. Lets review basic fire management. Fire needs 3 things to survive: fuel (something to burn), oxygen & heat. It probably would have been better to spray water onto each MLG set in turn, without trying to fully extinguish one before turning to the next. That is, take some of the heat out of each set and this will retard the fire (make it manageable) and prevent one of the MLG fire entering the rest of the plane.
Airbus to fireman, "You let our plane burn to the ground!"
Fireman, "Well yes, but I got two of the fires out before the third one lit the fuel in the wing..."
Cheers,
ABX
The reason that I don't want to call the lone fireman stupid is that I don't know who had the authority to decide when the test was a failure. Was it Airbus management? The pilots? The fire crew (with better visibility and experience with fires)? Another party? Don't know.
hobie:
once a serious fire situation had been identified would not the best course of action be to use roof mounted guns/nozzles and keep personnel well away from the danger areas?
fred:
Here goes, I'll stick my neck out again. Lets review basic fire management. Fire needs 3 things to survive: fuel (something to burn), oxygen & heat. It probably would have been better to spray water onto each MLG set in turn, without trying to fully extinguish one before turning to the next. That is, take some of the heat out of each set and this will retard the fire (make it manageable) and prevent one of the MLG fire entering the rest of the plane.
Airbus to fireman, "You let our plane burn to the ground!"
Fireman, "Well yes, but I got two of the fires out before the third one lit the fuel in the wing..."
Cheers,
ABX
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points of interest:
The RTO test was undertaken at Istres. This is a military airfield (hence no civil ARFF, and not a lot of heavy jets) with a loooong runway (designated as a Space Shuttle alternate - but also means RTO's there usually mean move the throttle lever to idle and wait for the bird to stop). Basically I would suspect the firemen had no prior training specific for this A340 test should it go wrong.
/*
The RTO test was undertaken at Istres. This is a military airfield (hence no civil ARFF, and not a lot of heavy jets) with a loooong runway (designated as a Space Shuttle alternate - but also means RTO's there usually mean move the throttle lever to idle and wait for the bird to stop). Basically I would suspect the firemen had no prior training specific for this A340 test should it go wrong.
/*
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
areo
Agreed, that would seem a likely scenario.
I stand to be corrected, but isn't SOP for an RTO test, to pull the throttles to idle and let the wheel brakes do ALL the stopping, the a/c config looked pretty clean in the RTO videos I have seen.
cargo boy, you might be able to elaborate a little here?
Cheers,
ABX
move the throttle lever to idle and wait for the bird to stop
cargo boy, you might be able to elaborate a little here?
Cheers,
ABX
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, back in my days the standard test RTO (in training) was;
At the call:
Brakes apply. (maximum to anti-skid activation)
Thrust levers idle. (If one was really good both could be done at the same time, however, brakes first always.)
Spoilers deployed.
As thrust reverse cannot be used in planning they cannot be used in the test. Of course in real life you use everything you can.
At the call:
Brakes apply. (maximum to anti-skid activation)
Thrust levers idle. (If one was really good both could be done at the same time, however, brakes first always.)
Spoilers deployed.
As thrust reverse cannot be used in planning they cannot be used in the test. Of course in real life you use everything you can.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This looks very impressive .... 
http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/20..._17brakes2.JPG
The C-17 Test Force successfully completed its final brake test mission. Firefighters unleashed more than 32,000 gallons of water on the new wheels, tires, and brakes to prevent extensive damage to the plane and axles.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an easy job! Firefighters everywhere have my sincere respect.
BahrainLad, I thought the rule was once there is fire, the test is considered failed and over?
The firefighters should have been given the go-ahead to extinguish the fires. The fireman at the wheel calling for more pressure from the pump operator seemed to know better than the aicraft test crew, but was made to appear unfairly inadequate in my opinion. But very, very brave. Once those tires popped, hydraulic fluid was aerosolised and ignited.
There were proposed changes around 02 or 03 regarding RTO testing rules which included as one of the RFCs the modification of the 3 or 5 minute wait.
The fuse plugs did not fail. They had yet to reach their design melt point.
The assembly is designed to withstand a specific maximum kinetic energy absorption rate before failing. That energy rate must have been exceeded by this RTO test. Because of the overload, the wheel and brake assemblies heated up faster than the combined sink could absorb. The rapid heating caused local temperatures (thus overall pressure) to rise faster than the wheel temperature at the fuse location.
Wheels and brake assemblies for the A340 (and A330) are made by Goodrich-Messier Inc - a joint venture between Goodrich and Messier-Bugatti of France. Final assembly and testing occurs mostly in Goodrich's North Carolina plant, while design work is handled by the Messier-Bugatti group in France.
The A320 series and most recent Boeing aircraft have assemblies designed and manufactured by Goodrich of Troy, Ohio. The A330/340 is the first aircraft series to use the newly formed alliance partnership between the French and American companies.
The firefighters should have been given the go-ahead to extinguish the fires. The fireman at the wheel calling for more pressure from the pump operator seemed to know better than the aicraft test crew, but was made to appear unfairly inadequate in my opinion. But very, very brave. Once those tires popped, hydraulic fluid was aerosolised and ignited.
There were proposed changes around 02 or 03 regarding RTO testing rules which included as one of the RFCs the modification of the 3 or 5 minute wait.
The fuse plugs did not fail. They had yet to reach their design melt point.
The assembly is designed to withstand a specific maximum kinetic energy absorption rate before failing. That energy rate must have been exceeded by this RTO test. Because of the overload, the wheel and brake assemblies heated up faster than the combined sink could absorb. The rapid heating caused local temperatures (thus overall pressure) to rise faster than the wheel temperature at the fuse location.
Wheels and brake assemblies for the A340 (and A330) are made by Goodrich-Messier Inc - a joint venture between Goodrich and Messier-Bugatti of France. Final assembly and testing occurs mostly in Goodrich's North Carolina plant, while design work is handled by the Messier-Bugatti group in France.
The A320 series and most recent Boeing aircraft have assemblies designed and manufactured by Goodrich of Troy, Ohio. The A330/340 is the first aircraft series to use the newly formed alliance partnership between the French and American companies.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alloway
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lighter side of it for a Sunday morning
While working for Saudia in Riyadh SA, pilot reported noise and lost of control of nosewheel stering on TO. After offloadingpax and doing usuall checks, tyre pressures, things loose etc it was taxied out for high speed taxi with pilot at controls he said it wasn't as bad so I said let me have a shot as I was covered for high speed taxi got started down the runway and the engineer on the panel
(747-300) said the brake temps were going up fast so get off runway. Did that and got out and watched with great red faces as ALL the wing and body gear
fuse plugs gave out. As we were going off shift it was a nice gift to the next crew. The only saving grace was the temp that day was 44c. But it goes to show they do work!!!!!!!!! At least the nose wheels were ok!!!!!!!!!
Keep them flying boys:
(747-300) said the brake temps were going up fast so get off runway. Did that and got out and watched with great red faces as ALL the wing and body gear
fuse plugs gave out. As we were going off shift it was a nice gift to the next crew. The only saving grace was the temp that day was 44c. But it goes to show they do work!!!!!!!!! At least the nose wheels were ok!!!!!!!!!
Keep them flying boys:
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Skydrol WILL burn, but not until a higher temperature is encountered.
So, what's left to catch fire? The tyres themselves, I guess..
TOO
ps another favourite at this time of year during a landing roll is de-icing fluid applied at take-off dripping onto hot brake assemblies - also pretty spectacular and who can blame any AIR controller for hitting the 'Aircraft Ground Incident' button?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it makes my flesh crawl to think of having an accident with fire crews like that around. I shan't have Istres on my diversion list though...
"Aerosolised" !!!!!!!!!AAAARRGGHHH!!!!
"Aerosolised" !!!!!!!!!AAAARRGGHHH!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CHocountry
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brave or not ?
The 'Sapeur Pompier' who is seen in the video is a very brave man. Would you risk everything standing under 300 odd tons of aircraft when everything that is supporting it is in flames and disintigrating in front of you? No, I thought not.
The real problem is training about such situation and positioning the fire truck at the right place.
If I am observing this video in the point of view of a "Airport firefighter" and not a " Sapeur Pompier (very brave in did)" I need to accept the fact they was simply not ready to deal with this type of action.
1. Application rate of water was wrong and this impossible to reach the right application rate with this type of hose.
2. If you want to achieve the right action you need to use a dual agent to extingusih this type of fire.
A) Use water to cool down the fire and project powder inside the water spray.
B) Coll down the brakes assembly with a water spray and never attack the fire on the side.
C) Be ready to bring a lot of water at the scene just because the discharge rate of a real water branch for airport firefighter is 450 liters per minutes
3. The poor french firefighter was not ready to deal with such fire and they are note working with the right tools.
4. The major risk in this situation is an hydraulic fire and a center tank fire just because the heat is climbing along the wheels assemblies and reaching the tanks (hydraulics and fuel)
5. And once again evacuate this big bird as soon as possible for your own safety
This type of test and videos are very usefull to remember to all of us the danger for all involved to protect the life of the crew and passengers.
The amount of post and readers are a good news to work together for safest aviation.
Be coordinate to minimize the risk for the life
The real problem is training about such situation and positioning the fire truck at the right place.
If I am observing this video in the point of view of a "Airport firefighter" and not a " Sapeur Pompier (very brave in did)" I need to accept the fact they was simply not ready to deal with this type of action.
1. Application rate of water was wrong and this impossible to reach the right application rate with this type of hose.
2. If you want to achieve the right action you need to use a dual agent to extingusih this type of fire.
A) Use water to cool down the fire and project powder inside the water spray.
B) Coll down the brakes assembly with a water spray and never attack the fire on the side.
C) Be ready to bring a lot of water at the scene just because the discharge rate of a real water branch for airport firefighter is 450 liters per minutes
3. The poor french firefighter was not ready to deal with such fire and they are note working with the right tools.
4. The major risk in this situation is an hydraulic fire and a center tank fire just because the heat is climbing along the wheels assemblies and reaching the tanks (hydraulics and fuel)
5. And once again evacuate this big bird as soon as possible for your own safety
This type of test and videos are very usefull to remember to all of us the danger for all involved to protect the life of the crew and passengers.
The amount of post and readers are a good news to work together for safest aviation.
Be coordinate to minimize the risk for the life
For me, a few more lessons learned via pprune. Thanks ConPilot for the remark about never approaching a hot tyre from the side. Exactly what the firefighters did in the 777 video!
And a bit of practical backseat firefighting for all of those who laughed at the lone fireman attacking - or trying to - one set of gear only. It's difficult enough aiming a pressurised firehose accurately at a single target, let alone three at once; and he would have seen his colleagues approaching from the side and behind to tackle the other fires.
And a bit of practical backseat firefighting for all of those who laughed at the lone fireman attacking - or trying to - one set of gear only. It's difficult enough aiming a pressurised firehose accurately at a single target, let alone three at once; and he would have seen his colleagues approaching from the side and behind to tackle the other fires.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the single fireman's focusing on one bogie, consider this. Here is a picture taken during a mock disaster drill at SWF (Stewart Airport, Newburgh NY).
In it the two firefighters have been sent in to extinguish an engine fire in a tail mounted engine. What they do not know is that a fuel spill has occurred to their right. This shot was taken about 5 seconds after the spill was igninted, and you can see through the heat that the hoseman does not realize this. His partner has just noticed that they are about to be overrun, and is trying to alert the hoseman to the situation. The entire point of this element of the drill was to teach the firefighters to be aware of the entire situation, not just the target zone of the hose. In any case, my point is that it is possible he was fixiated on one point, and just didn't realize the overall magnitude of the situation
(for more pictures of this drill: http://www.pbase.com/chasp/disaster_dirll_at_swf
In it the two firefighters have been sent in to extinguish an engine fire in a tail mounted engine. What they do not know is that a fuel spill has occurred to their right. This shot was taken about 5 seconds after the spill was igninted, and you can see through the heat that the hoseman does not realize this. His partner has just noticed that they are about to be overrun, and is trying to alert the hoseman to the situation. The entire point of this element of the drill was to teach the firefighters to be aware of the entire situation, not just the target zone of the hose. In any case, my point is that it is possible he was fixiated on one point, and just didn't realize the overall magnitude of the situation
(for more pictures of this drill: http://www.pbase.com/chasp/disaster_dirll_at_swf
Last edited by patrickal; 27th Nov 2006 at 16:32.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for more pictures of this drill: http://www.pbase.com/chasp/disaster_dirll_at_swf
105th Fire Brigade Arrives
it's a pity the 105th didn't arrive first .....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East Midlands
Age: 77
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside to this discussion, can anyone recall or direct me to the following story please. It referred to an airfield in Southern Europe, where a small fire was started, I believe, by a hot start on a jet engine. The gist of the tale was the inability of the local fire services to get one of their trucks running, necessitating it being push-started by the other one. Whilst this was going on, the fire spread to the tinder-dry grass. The story was told by an aircrew member who, in his words, nearly died laughing as he watched the firemen jumping up and down in frustration.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: belgium
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the mid-seventies, I worked in ATC at an airfield in west Africa. For night movements, we had a practical problem - the mains electricity supply was "unreliable" and the stand-by genny was only capable of supporting the technical equipent (radios, nav. aids, etc) or the runway lights, but not both at the same time.
As a result, the standard procedure if a night movement was anticipated was that the AFS placed, before it went dark, an (unlit) gooseneck flare next to each runway light. About thirty minutes before the anticipated movement the AFS would light the flares by the simple method of driving along the edge of the runway in a fire engine with someone sitting/standing on the back step with a lighted gooseneck, lighting each flare as they passed - he also a reserve of charged goosenecks available if one failed to light.
One particular night, that was the problem. For reasons unknown to me, the man on the back of the truck managed to light the reserve goosenecks. The truck left the runway with the whole of the back end on fire and the crew exited the immediate scene asap.
The now merrily burning fire engine set the surrounding bush on fire.
It took ten minutes to (bump) start the other fire engine to deal with the situation.
A significant proportion of the airfield was burned to the ground.
The municiple fire service arrived two hours later.
The inbound aircraft decided to divert - even thought the airport was "well illuminated" .
Sorry for thread drift.
As a result, the standard procedure if a night movement was anticipated was that the AFS placed, before it went dark, an (unlit) gooseneck flare next to each runway light. About thirty minutes before the anticipated movement the AFS would light the flares by the simple method of driving along the edge of the runway in a fire engine with someone sitting/standing on the back step with a lighted gooseneck, lighting each flare as they passed - he also a reserve of charged goosenecks available if one failed to light.
One particular night, that was the problem. For reasons unknown to me, the man on the back of the truck managed to light the reserve goosenecks. The truck left the runway with the whole of the back end on fire and the crew exited the immediate scene asap.
The now merrily burning fire engine set the surrounding bush on fire.
It took ten minutes to (bump) start the other fire engine to deal with the situation.
A significant proportion of the airfield was burned to the ground.
The municiple fire service arrived two hours later.
The inbound aircraft decided to divert - even thought the airport was "well illuminated" .
Sorry for thread drift.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learn't some good things from this video. At first, I thought the RTO went very well and that the brakes were a bit hot, rather than about to burst into flame - I was impressed (see below). It was interesting how quickly the situation escalated and how the first tyre exploded with almost no warning. Next time I have hot brakes I will bear that in mind.
Secondly, if you look carefully there is a tender (possibly) fighting the LMG behind the smoke, it is hard to see at times but the criticism of the firefighter only dealing with one fire might be misplaced, as there is a tender dealing with the one he ignores, but hard to see.
A while ago I saw an RTO video from the original 747, the brakes were on fire before the aircraft stopped and a wheel exploded during the 5 minute wait. The flames were much worse than the ones in this video and the test was hailed a success - the video was released by Boeing as a promotional video. It just goes to show the "if it ain't boeing" crowd selectively look at the facts.
How many of us react with venom when a non-aviator criticises our actions? It is amaing how many people think they know how to put out fires even though they have little or no training. (I've been taught to use Water and Halon handhelds - hardly a firefighter). In our industry unfortunately we get "soundbite teaching" about a lot of things, I for one would appreciate more knowledge of firefighting. I think that whatever the actions of the chap in the video, we can all criticise the lack of pressure, too small hose, poor communication (perhaps before the test too) and excessive danger that the firefighter was or put himself in. Regardless of whether the aircraft would have dropped on him or not, being hit by a flying brake pack or rim will do him no good at all!
Secondly, if you look carefully there is a tender (possibly) fighting the LMG behind the smoke, it is hard to see at times but the criticism of the firefighter only dealing with one fire might be misplaced, as there is a tender dealing with the one he ignores, but hard to see.
A while ago I saw an RTO video from the original 747, the brakes were on fire before the aircraft stopped and a wheel exploded during the 5 minute wait. The flames were much worse than the ones in this video and the test was hailed a success - the video was released by Boeing as a promotional video. It just goes to show the "if it ain't boeing" crowd selectively look at the facts.
How many of us react with venom when a non-aviator criticises our actions? It is amaing how many people think they know how to put out fires even though they have little or no training. (I've been taught to use Water and Halon handhelds - hardly a firefighter). In our industry unfortunately we get "soundbite teaching" about a lot of things, I for one would appreciate more knowledge of firefighting. I think that whatever the actions of the chap in the video, we can all criticise the lack of pressure, too small hose, poor communication (perhaps before the test too) and excessive danger that the firefighter was or put himself in. Regardless of whether the aircraft would have dropped on him or not, being hit by a flying brake pack or rim will do him no good at all!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video #2 now available
Video #2
with a soundtrack a bit creative..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3F0wgJx_I
or provocative ?
with a soundtrack a bit creative..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3F0wgJx_I
or provocative ?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SP,Brasil
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning to you all. I have seen the video and read the posts, and would like to give my insight as far as this test is concerned.
The test appears to be a maximum kinetic energy test to verify the capability of the brakes in absorbing energy. Since the airplane accelerated and stopped, I imagine that the test was accomplished with at least the aircraft's MTOW. The brake units are usually worn down upto about 10%. This is all done to make it a worst case scenario.
The pilots will accelerate the airplane to a speed that was previously calculated by the systems engineer. A speed of upto 160 kt would be a ball park figure. At that exact speed the pilots will simply step on the brakes and wait until the aircraft reaches a full stop. By regulations he is allowed to taxi the airplane in order to vacate the runway.
It is quite normal to have the brakes catch on fire. The fire has to be contained to the wheel well area and the test finishes 5 minutes later.
It appears that this test didn't go as predicted, and that is why the pilots seem to be a little aprehensive to leave the plane. The person who decides if the test should be aborted is the engineer responsible for this test (not the pilots).
This said my conclusion is the following. Flight test is just that!!
Things usually go ok, but sometimes they might not. That is why we do these tests. To make sure, that after certification, the airplane is totally safe for passengers to fly in them. Sh.. happens. Let's not get too excited. It just happened that things didn't go as planned on this one but eventually it did since the 340-600 was certified. Things like these are absolutely NORMAL in a flight test campaign.
Hope this has helped.
Take care,
Mork
The test appears to be a maximum kinetic energy test to verify the capability of the brakes in absorbing energy. Since the airplane accelerated and stopped, I imagine that the test was accomplished with at least the aircraft's MTOW. The brake units are usually worn down upto about 10%. This is all done to make it a worst case scenario.
The pilots will accelerate the airplane to a speed that was previously calculated by the systems engineer. A speed of upto 160 kt would be a ball park figure. At that exact speed the pilots will simply step on the brakes and wait until the aircraft reaches a full stop. By regulations he is allowed to taxi the airplane in order to vacate the runway.
It is quite normal to have the brakes catch on fire. The fire has to be contained to the wheel well area and the test finishes 5 minutes later.
It appears that this test didn't go as predicted, and that is why the pilots seem to be a little aprehensive to leave the plane. The person who decides if the test should be aborted is the engineer responsible for this test (not the pilots).
This said my conclusion is the following. Flight test is just that!!
Things usually go ok, but sometimes they might not. That is why we do these tests. To make sure, that after certification, the airplane is totally safe for passengers to fly in them. Sh.. happens. Let's not get too excited. It just happened that things didn't go as planned on this one but eventually it did since the 340-600 was certified. Things like these are absolutely NORMAL in a flight test campaign.
Hope this has helped.
Take care,
Mork