China Airlines B737 Fire at Okinawa
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rainboe
[Asking about inquiries into fire and airplanes when parked at terminal buildings]Where does it end?
Who noticed the fire first? Who instigated the emergency evacuation? On what basis? On which side? (Answer: the side from which the fire was fed. Turns out in this case to have been appropriate.) When did the cockpit crew (the commander) get to find out about the fire? Were they able to judge it accurately? (Answer: they seemed to be as surprised by the explosion as anyone. I don't think such a multiple-meter jump is planned!)
It seems to me that fires are events with huge amounts of uncertainty for which one can only vaguely plan. Every new event is a mine of information. I incline not to dismiss questions about what would have happened at a terminal so fatalistically as you.
PBL
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So everyone out safely - only just - and THEN the fire trucks roll up. Is this a little slow?
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
PBL,
Such a fire on an apron is an incredibly unusual and rare event. You can research all you like about what would happen should it occur at a jetty- what are you going to do with the information? There are already terminal fire and evacuation procedures. The jetty might be a problem- airport authorities have seen fit to lock the apron exit gangways with coded security locks. But what exactly is the problem? And your proposed ideas to do something about it? Ban jetties? Park aeroplanes only away from terminals? But you have lounges and gates and jetties in terminals because they are by the aeroplanes.
Last year a thread got seriously hung up over an inane point- the passenger bridge at Gatwick could take 747s under it, but if they had a noseleg collapse when the fin of a 747 was under it, it would smash into the bridge Some people couldn't mysteriously accept this- I never understood why. Likewise, I went to the movies last night (Bourne- brilliant). I accepted the cinema fire procedures were adequate and entrusted myself to their care. Fire, at any time, is a risk in our lives- one has to be fatalistic about it. Can you point me in the history of aviation to any undue dangers caused by aeroplanes parked at terminals spontaneously igniting? It's not exactly a frequent occurence, so wouldn't our attention be better placed elsewhere?
I incline not to dismiss questions about what would have happened at a terminal so fatalistically as you.
Last year a thread got seriously hung up over an inane point- the passenger bridge at Gatwick could take 747s under it, but if they had a noseleg collapse when the fin of a 747 was under it, it would smash into the bridge Some people couldn't mysteriously accept this- I never understood why. Likewise, I went to the movies last night (Bourne- brilliant). I accepted the cinema fire procedures were adequate and entrusted myself to their care. Fire, at any time, is a risk in our lives- one has to be fatalistic about it. Can you point me in the history of aviation to any undue dangers caused by aeroplanes parked at terminals spontaneously igniting? It's not exactly a frequent occurence, so wouldn't our attention be better placed elsewhere?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then we have this.....
August 23, 2007
Passengers on a China Airlines plane that caught fire at Okinawa Airport criticized the flight crew on Thursday, saying they gave unclear evacuation instructions that could have caused potentially fatal delays.
China Airlines defended its crew's reactions.
"If the crew hadn't been on the ball and the clients hadn't cooperated, then the result could have been different," said Chen Peng-yu, the Taiwan airline's assistant publicity vice president.
Passengers got at least USD$857 apiece in compensation, and more if their luggage was burned, Chen said.
According to many in a group of about 30 passengers who returned to Taipei on Thursday and spoke to reporters, passengers were crying and screaming for help inside the 737-800 aircraft that caught fire on Monday after landing on the southern Japanese island.
The fire had broken out as the plane neared its gate following its flight from Taipei to Okinawa's Naha Airport.
All 157 passengers and eight crew escaped unhurt minutes before the plane's left engine exploded and ripped the plane apart, sending flames and columns of black smoke billowing into the air.
The crew-members did not see the fire as early as passengers looking through the plane windows did, causing panic among the 157 passengers and attempts to open the doors, the returning passengers said.
They said emergency exits didn't open fast enough and they didn't know where to gather for evacuation.
"Inside it was normal, but outside you could see smoke," said Lin Hsiu-cheng, 52, a returning tourist from southern Taiwan. "Everyone was scared, and why couldn't (the crew) see it?
"Finally all four doors opened," she said, her voice quickening and eyes widening as she spoke. She said the explosion came a minute after she got out.
Another passenger surnamed Liao said: "The crew was not clear on what to do. We witnesses were much more clear."
A Japanese Transport Ministry team investigating the fire said a bolt on the right wing of the plane appeared to have ripped through a fuel tank.
"We found a tear in the fuel tank, so there is a high possibility that fuel from the tank leaked through that opening," Kazushige Daiki, an investigation team official, told a news conference.
(Reuters)
Perhaps the punters expected cooled mai tais once exiting the aeroplane, seeing as how they all got out with no fatalities.
Clearly, you can't please everyone....
August 23, 2007
Passengers on a China Airlines plane that caught fire at Okinawa Airport criticized the flight crew on Thursday, saying they gave unclear evacuation instructions that could have caused potentially fatal delays.
China Airlines defended its crew's reactions.
"If the crew hadn't been on the ball and the clients hadn't cooperated, then the result could have been different," said Chen Peng-yu, the Taiwan airline's assistant publicity vice president.
Passengers got at least USD$857 apiece in compensation, and more if their luggage was burned, Chen said.
According to many in a group of about 30 passengers who returned to Taipei on Thursday and spoke to reporters, passengers were crying and screaming for help inside the 737-800 aircraft that caught fire on Monday after landing on the southern Japanese island.
The fire had broken out as the plane neared its gate following its flight from Taipei to Okinawa's Naha Airport.
All 157 passengers and eight crew escaped unhurt minutes before the plane's left engine exploded and ripped the plane apart, sending flames and columns of black smoke billowing into the air.
The crew-members did not see the fire as early as passengers looking through the plane windows did, causing panic among the 157 passengers and attempts to open the doors, the returning passengers said.
They said emergency exits didn't open fast enough and they didn't know where to gather for evacuation.
"Inside it was normal, but outside you could see smoke," said Lin Hsiu-cheng, 52, a returning tourist from southern Taiwan. "Everyone was scared, and why couldn't (the crew) see it?
"Finally all four doors opened," she said, her voice quickening and eyes widening as she spoke. She said the explosion came a minute after she got out.
Another passenger surnamed Liao said: "The crew was not clear on what to do. We witnesses were much more clear."
A Japanese Transport Ministry team investigating the fire said a bolt on the right wing of the plane appeared to have ripped through a fuel tank.
"We found a tear in the fuel tank, so there is a high possibility that fuel from the tank leaked through that opening," Kazushige Daiki, an investigation team official, told a news conference.
(Reuters)
Perhaps the punters expected cooled mai tais once exiting the aeroplane, seeing as how they all got out with no fatalities.
Clearly, you can't please everyone....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picture of bolt pierced in fuel tank
Fuel tank hole blamed for Japan jet fire http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...lane_Fire.html
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evacuation
Of course paseengers will always think it took too long to get out. Yes they probably DID see smoke/ flames before the crew as their windows are bigger and more numerous than crew portholes in the doors. Passengers would have seen the flames and wanted to get out immediately, but bear in mind that cabin crew have to wait until the aircraft has stopped and engines switched off until an evac can be started, otherwise passengers end up evacuating straight into running engines.
Everyone got out ok in this incident. There is little point in saying "it could have been faster"
It really is a great example showing why window blinds should be kept open for all take offs and landings.
Everyone got out ok in this incident. There is little point in saying "it could have been faster"
It really is a great example showing why window blinds should be kept open for all take offs and landings.
Paxing All Over The World
The item that 411A posts is highly amusing. It reminds of a parent who, inadvertently, allows their child to stray into danger and then - when the child is recovered to safety - gets very angry at the child and scolds them for wandering away. Their own anxiety and self anger, gets turned around.
These pax suddenly realised how very, very, very bad it could have been and get frightened. It's a usual result of stress and fear. At the time of the threat - the person is fairly calm but, when the reaction sets in, they have all sorts of emotions come to the surface.
Naturally, it is almost impossible for them to take a dispassionate look at the situation and realise that they were very lucky and the crew did a first rate job of changing their work stance from "Normal arrival at the gate" to full emergency in a way that they have never imagined. That is to say, an evacuation without more than a few seconds warning.
Also, the pax cannot get the timeline clear because the time they spent in side the cabin - after the fire had been seen - will appear to have been very much longer than it actually was. We are all aware of how time 'telescopes' in our minds during an event. That is how we come to remember it, even though we are told later how few seconds elapsed, it is our perception of elapsed time that we stick with.
Lastly, when someone feels worried, panicked and realises that they might have died, they will lash out both verbally and physically. If money is all that is within their reach, then they might say no amount of money can recompense them. They will, naturally, take whatever is offered but will continue to harbour anger about the event.
For all of their feelings to find a harmonious balance will involve reading a detailed and factual report of the incident (which they might choose not to read!) discussing it with fellow survivors and hearing their memories and personal 'time lines' and, perhaps, the elapse of a good two years. The carrier's PR people have my sympathy, as much as the carriers flight and cabin crew have my acclimation.
A quick word, if I may, about the possibility of the bolt 'puncturing the fuel tank after one rotation' as asked in #142 + #143. Once again, it might be timely to recall the elapsed time from maintenance and how many cycles since then. If this had happened on a departure and the tank punctured as the slats retracted, it would have emptied in flight and resulted in a rapid diversion but, almost certainly, the tank would have been empty upon arrival. It's a funny old world.
These pax suddenly realised how very, very, very bad it could have been and get frightened. It's a usual result of stress and fear. At the time of the threat - the person is fairly calm but, when the reaction sets in, they have all sorts of emotions come to the surface.
Naturally, it is almost impossible for them to take a dispassionate look at the situation and realise that they were very lucky and the crew did a first rate job of changing their work stance from "Normal arrival at the gate" to full emergency in a way that they have never imagined. That is to say, an evacuation without more than a few seconds warning.
Also, the pax cannot get the timeline clear because the time they spent in side the cabin - after the fire had been seen - will appear to have been very much longer than it actually was. We are all aware of how time 'telescopes' in our minds during an event. That is how we come to remember it, even though we are told later how few seconds elapsed, it is our perception of elapsed time that we stick with.
Lastly, when someone feels worried, panicked and realises that they might have died, they will lash out both verbally and physically. If money is all that is within their reach, then they might say no amount of money can recompense them. They will, naturally, take whatever is offered but will continue to harbour anger about the event.
For all of their feelings to find a harmonious balance will involve reading a detailed and factual report of the incident (which they might choose not to read!) discussing it with fellow survivors and hearing their memories and personal 'time lines' and, perhaps, the elapse of a good two years. The carrier's PR people have my sympathy, as much as the carriers flight and cabin crew have my acclimation.
A quick word, if I may, about the possibility of the bolt 'puncturing the fuel tank after one rotation' as asked in #142 + #143. Once again, it might be timely to recall the elapsed time from maintenance and how many cycles since then. If this had happened on a departure and the tank punctured as the slats retracted, it would have emptied in flight and resulted in a rapid diversion but, almost certainly, the tank would have been empty upon arrival. It's a funny old world.
A quick word, if I may, about the possibility of the bolt 'puncturing the fuel tank after one rotation' as asked in #142 + #143. Once again, it might be timely to recall the elapsed time from maintenance and how many cycles since then. If this had happened on a departure and the tank punctured as the slats retracted, it would have emptied in flight and resulted in a rapid diversion but, almost certainly, the tank would have been empty upon arrival. It's a funny old world.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Age: 73
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still, it's absolutely amazing that a stray bolt could have been propelled with such force into the fuel tank. I jst can't understand it: it must have gone in like a bullet.
Any explanation for that level of force?
Any explanation for that level of force?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wing tanks are integral to the wing itself, the forward spar, is actually the forward face of the tank, there are no bladders inside the tank.
So if the aircraft just came out of maintenance it is quite possible that a bolt of some nature may have not been tightened sufficiently or had been replace and the old forgotten.
Then after landing and associated flap and slat operation said bolt works it way into a position where the head is against the slat and upon retraction said solid bolt would easily push through the aluminum tank skin. (if you have a look at the picture on the link it is not through the wall of the tank, the slat track channel (thanks IFix!).
Remember that the hydraulic system pressure is 3000psi and the leading edge slats are thicker than other skin surfaces to resist impact damage, so it is quite reasonable that the bolt is the cause of the leak.
Now having said that and seeing the video and amount of wind it is more than likely that the fuel would have run on the under surface of the wing (downhill towards the keel) and pooled. Given the residual thrust from the N1 fan would blow a lot away, only upon shut down does it actually begin to pool.
This would explain why the fire started at the stand and not during taxi in.
As I posted before (#98), any fire not in the turbine or accessory areas of the engine are not within the capabilities of the on board extinguisher, and there are no crew actions to deal with the situation.
Professionally I would say any evacuation of 160 odd people with only two minor injuries and not using the overwing exits is a damm fine effort on the CC part!
All up we will have a lot to learn from the final report which I am sure will be very well documented. It also gives us a new LOFT scenario for the un-expected in the sim,
Ie: uneventful landing and taxi, just upon runway exit (while we are going spoilers down, flaps up, paperwork blah blah blah, call to from “lucy” in 2L that she “thinks she sees black smoke coming from near the wingy thingy” (don’t laugh I had that once)! No crew indication, outside wx atrocious, pissing rain, wind and blowing snow, at night so the tower can see to confirm……… sounds like fun hey! I’d get the FO to stick his head out the window!
So if the aircraft just came out of maintenance it is quite possible that a bolt of some nature may have not been tightened sufficiently or had been replace and the old forgotten.
Then after landing and associated flap and slat operation said bolt works it way into a position where the head is against the slat and upon retraction said solid bolt would easily push through the aluminum tank skin. (if you have a look at the picture on the link it is not through the wall of the tank, the slat track channel (thanks IFix!).
Remember that the hydraulic system pressure is 3000psi and the leading edge slats are thicker than other skin surfaces to resist impact damage, so it is quite reasonable that the bolt is the cause of the leak.
Now having said that and seeing the video and amount of wind it is more than likely that the fuel would have run on the under surface of the wing (downhill towards the keel) and pooled. Given the residual thrust from the N1 fan would blow a lot away, only upon shut down does it actually begin to pool.
This would explain why the fire started at the stand and not during taxi in.
As I posted before (#98), any fire not in the turbine or accessory areas of the engine are not within the capabilities of the on board extinguisher, and there are no crew actions to deal with the situation.
Professionally I would say any evacuation of 160 odd people with only two minor injuries and not using the overwing exits is a damm fine effort on the CC part!
All up we will have a lot to learn from the final report which I am sure will be very well documented. It also gives us a new LOFT scenario for the un-expected in the sim,
Ie: uneventful landing and taxi, just upon runway exit (while we are going spoilers down, flaps up, paperwork blah blah blah, call to from “lucy” in 2L that she “thinks she sees black smoke coming from near the wingy thingy” (don’t laugh I had that once)!
No crew indication, outside wx atrocious, pissing rain, wind and blowing snow, at night so the tower can see to confirm……… sounds like fun hey! I’d get the FO to stick his head out the window!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don´t need much force.
The puncture takes place INSIDE the fueltank
It can not be compared with the Concorde-Szenario
The puncture takes place INSIDE the fueltank
It can not be compared with the Concorde-Szenario
Last edited by IFixPlanes; 24th Aug 2007 at 17:15.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good things
They were very lucky that the fire didn't happen in flight - or we would never have known what caused it...
On the other hand, perhaps it was leaking already and just needed the hot brakes to drip on, to get it started.
Well this one will be closely observed - from cause to actions - and will provide rich pickings for safety lectures and procedure writers.
FC.
On the other hand, perhaps it was leaking already and just needed the hot brakes to drip on, to get it started.
Well this one will be closely observed - from cause to actions - and will provide rich pickings for safety lectures and procedure writers.
FC.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydraulic pressure compared with fuel pressure
Hi Slekic,
I see this is your first post on this network. Welcome aboard. I defer to your age. Do you have technical background?
The leading edge devices on the 737 are powered by hydraulics. Hydraulic pressure is huge . Hydraulics will get the job done. Never get in the way of hydraulics !
You can study more here http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm plus many other sites
Study is good.
This discussion is taking a technical direction now.
I like to study too but I am confused. I see from the photo, that the hole appears to be near the top of the fuel tank, and I believe (perhaps erroneously) that the fuel tanks are not pressurised. So how could so much fuel escape so quickly once the aircraft arrived in the parking position?
I see this is your first post on this network. Welcome aboard. I defer to your age. Do you have technical background?
The leading edge devices on the 737 are powered by hydraulics. Hydraulic pressure is huge . Hydraulics will get the job done. Never get in the way of hydraulics !
You can study more here http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm plus many other sites
Study is good.
This discussion is taking a technical direction now.
I like to study too but I am confused. I see from the photo, that the hole appears to be near the top of the fuel tank, and I believe (perhaps erroneously) that the fuel tanks are not pressurised. So how could so much fuel escape so quickly once the aircraft arrived in the parking position?
Last edited by Guava Tree; 24th Aug 2007 at 08:09. Reason: "wuth" in title corrected to "with"
According to the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) Boeing had issued worldwide alert after two similar cases of the bolts coming off but did not issue a mandatory change of the bolts. It said that China Airlines underwent checks after the alert. There are lot of high speed airflows around control surfaces that would impart a lot of energy to lose bits of metal but the question remains of how do bolts, tightened and then subsequently rechecked, come loose enough to fall off in the first place. Design flaw?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guanxi- Pure Speculation
“I see from the photo, that the hole appears to be near the top of the fuel tank, and I believe that the fuel tanks are not pressurised. So how could so much fuel escape so quickly once the aircraft arrived in the parking position?”
“Guanxi” Check in the Wikopedia. It exists in Taiwan , China and Japan.
Just because I am paranoid, does not mean to say that maintenance is not sometimes incompetent and and “when necessary” corrupt.
Check Guanxi in the Wikepedia.
What am I on about ?
The high pressure fuel hoses were correctly reconnected by “friendly” Japanese “investigating” engineers and a diversionary bolt was hammered through the nearest convenient part of the fuel tank.
This is pure speculation designed to elicit a response from those of us especially Flight Engineers. Not a lost breed yet I hope. I know that 737 has no F/E but still many F/E know about it !
Please lets continue the discussion with informed technical knowledge
“Guanxi” Check in the Wikopedia. It exists in Taiwan , China and Japan.
Just because I am paranoid, does not mean to say that maintenance is not sometimes incompetent and and “when necessary” corrupt.
Check Guanxi in the Wikepedia.
What am I on about ?
The high pressure fuel hoses were correctly reconnected by “friendly” Japanese “investigating” engineers and a diversionary bolt was hammered through the nearest convenient part of the fuel tank.
This is pure speculation designed to elicit a response from those of us especially Flight Engineers. Not a lost breed yet I hope. I know that 737 has no F/E but still many F/E know about it !
Please lets continue the discussion with informed technical knowledge
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Guava Tree
The high pressure fuel hoses were correctly reconnected by “friendly” Japanese “investigating” engineers and a diversionary bolt was hammered through the nearest convenient part of the fuel tank.
PBL
Once again, even this thread has progressed predicatably towards manaufacturer bashing regarding "why didn't they mandate a fix" to a known problem.
I say again that you can only mandate against a rule/regulation and that is the repsonsibility of the regulator to interpret, not the manufacturer. And regarding the rules, they are written mostly for operation in the air and not after the aircraft is parked.
The history has numerous incidents of fuel leaks in the air and thankfuly the regulations of the design make it unlikely that they will progress to a catastrophe (leak harmelssly, overboard, no ignition sources, fire detection/suppression etc.)
History has also shown that the greatest problem is fuel pooling with the aircraft parked on the ground (with running engines to stir it up), but as I said before it takes a large leak to pool fuel to this extent.
After seeing the photo, I 'm sure that the regulators will find something to fix other than just maintenance issues.
I say again that you can only mandate against a rule/regulation and that is the repsonsibility of the regulator to interpret, not the manufacturer. And regarding the rules, they are written mostly for operation in the air and not after the aircraft is parked.
The history has numerous incidents of fuel leaks in the air and thankfuly the regulations of the design make it unlikely that they will progress to a catastrophe (leak harmelssly, overboard, no ignition sources, fire detection/suppression etc.)
History has also shown that the greatest problem is fuel pooling with the aircraft parked on the ground (with running engines to stir it up), but as I said before it takes a large leak to pool fuel to this extent.
After seeing the photo, I 'm sure that the regulators will find something to fix other than just maintenance issues.