BA 757 engine fire on approach to Glasgow
Guest
Posts: n/a
So let me get this straight 4 miles out with an engine fire exactly who would at this stage get onto the cabin interphone to confirm it ?
The flight crew will be flying the plane and putting the fire out and preparing for a single engine landing with more flap than is practiced in the sim as flap 30 will have been selected by 4 miles .
if cabin crew think the flight crew will be able to talk to them at this stage they need more crm trng .
Oh and I believe atc have binoculars so seeing smoke at 4 miles will be possible .
The flight crew will be flying the plane and putting the fire out and preparing for a single engine landing with more flap than is practiced in the sim as flap 30 will have been selected by 4 miles .
if cabin crew think the flight crew will be able to talk to them at this stage they need more crm trng .
Oh and I believe atc have binoculars so seeing smoke at 4 miles will be possible .
Guest
Posts: n/a
So sudden twang your too busy fighting your engine fire to talk to the cabin crew but not too busy to talk to ATC four miles away looking at you through binoculars. On our a/c I'm 12 ft away from your engines.
Just to let you know four miles out I'll be strapped in my jump seat for landing mate. Either I'm not making myself clear or I'm just having my tail pulled here. I do understand the chain of command on the aircraft and I do understand who is ultimately in charge I also can get my head around the fact that you will be busy if you have an engine fire. I'm just saying don't discount the potential information the cabin crew can give in these situations. If your asking ATC for information why not cabin crew.
Some of you seem to be a bit jumpy about getting cabin crew involved in some of your descision making.
[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]
Just to let you know four miles out I'll be strapped in my jump seat for landing mate. Either I'm not making myself clear or I'm just having my tail pulled here. I do understand the chain of command on the aircraft and I do understand who is ultimately in charge I also can get my head around the fact that you will be busy if you have an engine fire. I'm just saying don't discount the potential information the cabin crew can give in these situations. If your asking ATC for information why not cabin crew.
Some of you seem to be a bit jumpy about getting cabin crew involved in some of your descision making.
[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by mainfrog2 (edited 29 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think mainfrog has a very good point. However 4 miles out its easier to talk to atc than cabin crew, and the last thing you want to do at that stage in the game is to complicate things when the engine has gone pop. The workload has already gone through the roof.
In practically all engine fires the main thing is to get the aircraft on the ground, and at no position are you better placed to do this than at 4 miles final and configured. So what if you've got a touch more flap, use some flying skills and stick a bit more power on the other engine, try and get the fire out, but get it on the ground!
I certainly think its important to canvas opinions from all sources where there is doubt about the problem, but time was a factor here. In my opinon the bright red lights and the fire bell would be enough at this point in time. Unless you're of the community who would question this, believing the indication to be caused by 'a major bleed leak'... Where's the indication to tell you that it wasn't!?!
In practically all engine fires the main thing is to get the aircraft on the ground, and at no position are you better placed to do this than at 4 miles final and configured. So what if you've got a touch more flap, use some flying skills and stick a bit more power on the other engine, try and get the fire out, but get it on the ground!
I certainly think its important to canvas opinions from all sources where there is doubt about the problem, but time was a factor here. In my opinon the bright red lights and the fire bell would be enough at this point in time. Unless you're of the community who would question this, believing the indication to be caused by 'a major bleed leak'... Where's the indication to tell you that it wasn't!?!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mainfrog 2 you've just proved my point perfectly .
To transmit to atc tower you just need to key the mic on the ctl coloumn already in your hand . You will already be calling mayday anyway as it is mandatory in BA .
To contact the cabin crew you need to select cabin interphone on the centre pedestal ie look down away from the shop then press the cabin call on the overhead panel yes more distraction then wait for a reply from someone who has to peer through a
very small aperture unless they leave their seat and you suggest this should be done with 100 seconds to touchdown . The last time a BA 757 was trailling significant amounts of smoke ... you know the one the went into GVA , nothing could be seen from the cabin.
No matter what the response from the cabin you would still execute the engine fire checklist .
You missed the point if you think that I do not believe in involving the cabin crew . So to reitterate I'm suggesting that one pilot will fly the plane coping with assymetric flight on short finals probably transmitting to atc whilst the other pilot executes the emergency checklist .
Once the a/c has touched down one would expect a cabin crew member to use the alert call to advise the flight crew of any untoward signs . Now that would be CRM in action .
To transmit to atc tower you just need to key the mic on the ctl coloumn already in your hand . You will already be calling mayday anyway as it is mandatory in BA .
To contact the cabin crew you need to select cabin interphone on the centre pedestal ie look down away from the shop then press the cabin call on the overhead panel yes more distraction then wait for a reply from someone who has to peer through a
very small aperture unless they leave their seat and you suggest this should be done with 100 seconds to touchdown . The last time a BA 757 was trailling significant amounts of smoke ... you know the one the went into GVA , nothing could be seen from the cabin.
No matter what the response from the cabin you would still execute the engine fire checklist .
You missed the point if you think that I do not believe in involving the cabin crew . So to reitterate I'm suggesting that one pilot will fly the plane coping with assymetric flight on short finals probably transmitting to atc whilst the other pilot executes the emergency checklist .
Once the a/c has touched down one would expect a cabin crew member to use the alert call to advise the flight crew of any untoward signs . Now that would be CRM in action .
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sudden twang... I stand corrected.
My original post was trying to point out that the cabin crew can be useful in emergency situations. Even after following this thread I still don't know everything that happened on the BA Glasgow flight and so my comments were meant to be more general. Maybe I was rising to Devil's Advocates bait after their post which seemed to imply we would just crumble into jibbering wrecks at the first sign of trouble.
Horns now pulled in.
My original post was trying to point out that the cabin crew can be useful in emergency situations. Even after following this thread I still don't know everything that happened on the BA Glasgow flight and so my comments were meant to be more general. Maybe I was rising to Devil's Advocates bait after their post which seemed to imply we would just crumble into jibbering wrecks at the first sign of trouble.
Horns now pulled in.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mainfrog2, I certainly never forget that I have a crew or pax in the aircraft - i.e. all the lives onboard are priceless, indeed I similarly remember that sometimes (read, 'many a time') it's the actions of individuals that have saved the day.
However (and you knew that was coming, didn’t you ? ) w.r.t 'CRM seems to be talked about a lot but not always put into practice'.... maybe, and maybe not, e.g. I'd say that a lot of CRM seems to be about 'team building' (rather than focusing on the idea of 'the crew' - and there is, imho, a subtle difference between the meaning of being part of a team and / or part of a crew - Nb. however they are not mutually exclusive) when it might perhaps be better orientated towards getting the best decision / action / outcome from the crew.
Ok, this is all very nebulous, I know, but I'm afraid to say that in the airline which I work for the meaning / focus of CRM may seemingly, imho, have drifted towards PC thoughts on equality and an individuals human rights - rather than the real meaning of the words that form the title of CRM.
Ps. With regards to becoming a 'medium', uhm, I think I'll stick to flying aircraft - that said, the ability to clairvoyantly foresee that you're about to crash into a mountain could indeed be quite useful !
However (and you knew that was coming, didn’t you ? ) w.r.t 'CRM seems to be talked about a lot but not always put into practice'.... maybe, and maybe not, e.g. I'd say that a lot of CRM seems to be about 'team building' (rather than focusing on the idea of 'the crew' - and there is, imho, a subtle difference between the meaning of being part of a team and / or part of a crew - Nb. however they are not mutually exclusive) when it might perhaps be better orientated towards getting the best decision / action / outcome from the crew.
Ok, this is all very nebulous, I know, but I'm afraid to say that in the airline which I work for the meaning / focus of CRM may seemingly, imho, have drifted towards PC thoughts on equality and an individuals human rights - rather than the real meaning of the words that form the title of CRM.
Ps. With regards to becoming a 'medium', uhm, I think I'll stick to flying aircraft - that said, the ability to clairvoyantly foresee that you're about to crash into a mountain could indeed be quite useful !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just the idea of people springing onto evacuation slides while very high above the ground (757 or larger) is a very serious option. If a slide fails to inflate etc, people might jump or fall anyway if they panic, or are pushed, when the "reptile brain" takes over in those behind you. Now if fire trucks are quickly next to the plane and tower control gives you their radio frequency, they can help decide if there are flames coming OUT of the engine. A little smoke from an engine and/or brakes, wheels while quickly being sprayed by a fire truck, might not require a very hasty, risky evacuation.
Broken legs, arms or necks could result from any evacuation, even from a much lower (to the ground) MD-80 or 737.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 31 May 2001).]
Broken legs, arms or necks could result from any evacuation, even from a much lower (to the ground) MD-80 or 737.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 31 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sudden Twang-in contrast to your idea, if the plane is within about ten miles or so of the runway when the fire bell & lights come on, would it be better to pull the affected engine to idle power (once the rudder into the good engine is "cranked in" and the heading control, power and speed are stable with desired single-engine flaps and gear all down, start the APU...)? When an emergency has been declared and you are on the ground, smoothly reverse only the good engine? This has already been suggested: focus only on flying the plane using one engine, unless a few minutes or more from the airport?
How about fire lights/bells on takeoff (normal flap setting on long runway) a bit over 100 knots-cancel the bell and continue? If so, how many Captains brief this during the first leg of a trip?
How about fire lights/bells on takeoff (normal flap setting on long runway) a bit over 100 knots-cancel the bell and continue? If so, how many Captains brief this during the first leg of a trip?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sudden Twang-I was only addressing the issue of avoiding too many checklist items when very close to landing (suggested by others), other than flying the beast. My questions were for any reader on Pprune, in order to promote a discussion of emergency procedures in this situation, but I was not trying to second guess your very good ideas ideas and points.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sudden Twang, I have never seen Ignition Override engage in that peculiar form of entertainment known as "wind-up" here on PPRuNe, and I'm convinced he's not doing that now either.
Why don't you have another look at his post, and consider it with a fresh mind?
BTW, interesting discussion Ladies & Gents
Why don't you have another look at his post, and consider it with a fresh mind?
BTW, interesting discussion Ladies & Gents
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know nothing about this incident other than as presented here but thought I might stick a couple of pence worth of technical info into the pot. "Modern" fire detection systems are much less likely to give false warnings tha older sytems. There are two independant fire detectors (as well as overheat detectors) and in normal operation both loops must detect a fire or overheat to present the indications to the crew. It is possible for a single loop to develop a fault which will not present a fire warning but will cause the system logic to automatically re-arrange itself so that the remaining good loop now operates as a single loop system and this can then present fire warnings if one subsequently occurs. (most MELs allow for dispatch in this config). Additionally, "most" Fire warnings are caused by hot gas leaks and do not necessarily involve flames at all BUT if it is hot gas then the warning will nearly always extinguish as thrust is reduced which of course will cause the temp of the gas leaking to reduce and will certainly disappear when the engine is shutdown. If fire warning indications persist after the appropriate drills then it is either a real fire or a false warning (subject to above comments). The latter is of course possible when the system is operating as single loop as mentioned.
Don't know if this helps or confuses.
Don't know if this helps or confuses.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just while we are on the subject of fire/overheat detection, someone once gave me this little piece of info. Just thought I'd pass it on. The Systron Donner system uses a pressure tube type system, meaning that the hot gas outside the tube increases the pressure inside the tube and at a predetermined level will give an overheat warning. Should the pressure continue to increase to a higher level, indicating a fire then a fire warning will be given. Yes and?..........I hear you all cry! Okay, now consider what a fault light means - somewhere in the overheat/fire "tube" a fault has developed, since this is a pressurised tube this could be a pressure drop below a predetermined value, resulting in a fault light coming on.
So back to the practical scenario. Fire bell goes off, shut engine down, fire bottles, lights go out, etc etc but then you notice the "Fault" light illuminated. So is the fire out or not? Maybe, maybe not, if the fire has burnt through both fire loops this is what you'll end up with. As I said someone once told me this and this thread brought to the front of my mind!
So back to the practical scenario. Fire bell goes off, shut engine down, fire bottles, lights go out, etc etc but then you notice the "Fault" light illuminated. So is the fire out or not? Maybe, maybe not, if the fire has burnt through both fire loops this is what you'll end up with. As I said someone once told me this and this thread brought to the front of my mind!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now I was told that the way that it works is that some engine fire 'loops' are basically constructed in a way that has a central core of conducting wire, this is then sheathed by a normally non-conducting (dielectric) material, which is itself is then sheathed by another layer of conducting material.
The ends of the conducting materials are linked to the fire detection unit, and an electrical signal/potential is applied to each.
Now clever bit is that with an increase of temperature the intermediate dielectric 'breaks down' and becomes conductive - allowing current to flow between the inner and outer conductors - and one would imagine that it's the level of current flow sensed between the two that triggers either the overheat or fire annunciation.
But perhaps the cleverest bit is that even if the wire is cut (i.e. the loop is broken) the system will still work.
For those who fly the B737-3/4/500, you'll know that there are two detector loops and two levels of fire/overheat detection…. HOT, and HOTTER.
If a HOT situation exists, you get an OVERHEAT indication.
If HOTTER, you get the full blown FIRE indication.
During NORMAL operation, both of the detectors must sense an alert before it is displayed.
Now the detection system needs to be able to handle internal faults and to that end it has a FAULT DETECTOR SYSTEM which automatically deselects a faulty detector…. and here's the rub... the system will NOT turn on the fault light to tell you that you have lost a detector loop, unless you do an OVHT/FIRE test.
The subsequent test is a tricky thing to do: If the OVHT DET switch is NORMAL and you get a FAULT light... you have a failure of both detector loops on one or both engines.
If you then push the OVHT/FIRE test switch and you get a FAULT light... how do you determine which loop is the one with the fault ? Well, push OVHT DET switch to A (or B) and if the light comes on, that is the broken one.
Uhm, but can the system still detect a fault ? Well place the FAULT/INOP and OVHT/FIRE test switch to the FAULT/INOP position and if the FAULT light comes on you're in luck it's still working !
Of course please do check this in your Technical Manual and / or with a Training Captain.
Ps. Any engineers out there got some more info on how these systems really work ?
The ends of the conducting materials are linked to the fire detection unit, and an electrical signal/potential is applied to each.
Now clever bit is that with an increase of temperature the intermediate dielectric 'breaks down' and becomes conductive - allowing current to flow between the inner and outer conductors - and one would imagine that it's the level of current flow sensed between the two that triggers either the overheat or fire annunciation.
But perhaps the cleverest bit is that even if the wire is cut (i.e. the loop is broken) the system will still work.
For those who fly the B737-3/4/500, you'll know that there are two detector loops and two levels of fire/overheat detection…. HOT, and HOTTER.
If a HOT situation exists, you get an OVERHEAT indication.
If HOTTER, you get the full blown FIRE indication.
During NORMAL operation, both of the detectors must sense an alert before it is displayed.
Now the detection system needs to be able to handle internal faults and to that end it has a FAULT DETECTOR SYSTEM which automatically deselects a faulty detector…. and here's the rub... the system will NOT turn on the fault light to tell you that you have lost a detector loop, unless you do an OVHT/FIRE test.
The subsequent test is a tricky thing to do: If the OVHT DET switch is NORMAL and you get a FAULT light... you have a failure of both detector loops on one or both engines.
If you then push the OVHT/FIRE test switch and you get a FAULT light... how do you determine which loop is the one with the fault ? Well, push OVHT DET switch to A (or B) and if the light comes on, that is the broken one.
Uhm, but can the system still detect a fault ? Well place the FAULT/INOP and OVHT/FIRE test switch to the FAULT/INOP position and if the FAULT light comes on you're in luck it's still working !
Of course please do check this in your Technical Manual and / or with a Training Captain.
Ps. Any engineers out there got some more info on how these systems really work ?
