Emirates A380 continues to LHR after Cargo Fire?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And where would you put it? Commercial do their best to fill all cargo compartments. If they managed to do so, (as EK cargo department almost always do), all you'd see - from just about any position in the cargo compartment - would be the side of a container, about two centrimetres from the lens.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Boeing managed to get certified CCTV equipment in ceilings of modified MD11s, then it should be certainly possible to have something like that in the holds. Especially, since those ones had infra modes.
Acutally, I am wondering myself why this is not standard.
Danny
Acutally, I am wondering myself why this is not standard.
Danny
puff m'call, jollygirl;
I don't think this has been asked/answered yet.
I have a question and a comment. For the A380, are the detectors "smoke" or "fire" detectors? The A320 series and A330/A340 series there is no fire detection system but only smoke detectors.
The comment i have is, these smoke detectors would occasionally trigger in high-humidity conditions on the ground with the cargo doors open. I have never experienced a smoke caution/warning in flight.
So far as the "reported incident" goes, (we have no report yet), regardless of whether it happened or not, (I think fundamentally this is the same category of question as the evac and slide deployment one), - If one has a fire or smoke warning, unless one can positively identify it as false, one lands at the nearest suitable, period. If on an extended over-water leg, one decides very carefully, obviously. Fortunately these systems are very reliable and false alarms rarely occur.
The British Airways' collective decision to carry on with an engine out isn't quite the same, but for my money its damn near - the proof for me would be in the simulator, if, on an engine failure with damage, (no N2 or N3, over-temp, hi vibs etc), I decided to carry on the mission using financial considerations as justification for the PPC/IFR ride, I would rightfully have failed the ride.
But it's a different aviation/airline world now, where pilots have, perhaps because more and more don't know any better, have permitted the MBA's to take charge of the left seat where cost is the primary consideration in decision-making. Not saying it can't be, but given the industry's tremendous safety record and an increasing number of managers who have no idea where that record came from or why it exists, the industry has yet to re-draw the line between money and primary safety principles.
Originally Posted by jollygirl
I would be interested in hearing the Engineering side of this... which sensors do they use and what is the failure/service history for that P/N and/or manufacturer?
Chris Wickens has been doing some interesting research on responses to alerts with histories of false alarms, not making a judgment on this event either way, is anyone familiar with this vein of his research?
Chris Wickens has been doing some interesting research on responses to alerts with histories of false alarms, not making a judgment on this event either way, is anyone familiar with this vein of his research?
I have a question and a comment. For the A380, are the detectors "smoke" or "fire" detectors? The A320 series and A330/A340 series there is no fire detection system but only smoke detectors.
The comment i have is, these smoke detectors would occasionally trigger in high-humidity conditions on the ground with the cargo doors open. I have never experienced a smoke caution/warning in flight.
So far as the "reported incident" goes, (we have no report yet), regardless of whether it happened or not, (I think fundamentally this is the same category of question as the evac and slide deployment one), - If one has a fire or smoke warning, unless one can positively identify it as false, one lands at the nearest suitable, period. If on an extended over-water leg, one decides very carefully, obviously. Fortunately these systems are very reliable and false alarms rarely occur.
The British Airways' collective decision to carry on with an engine out isn't quite the same, but for my money its damn near - the proof for me would be in the simulator, if, on an engine failure with damage, (no N2 or N3, over-temp, hi vibs etc), I decided to carry on the mission using financial considerations as justification for the PPC/IFR ride, I would rightfully have failed the ride.
But it's a different aviation/airline world now, where pilots have, perhaps because more and more don't know any better, have permitted the MBA's to take charge of the left seat where cost is the primary consideration in decision-making. Not saying it can't be, but given the industry's tremendous safety record and an increasing number of managers who have no idea where that record came from or why it exists, the industry has yet to re-draw the line between money and primary safety principles.
Last edited by PJ2; 19th Jan 2010 at 23:34.
Just a thought, but does the fact that ionization detectors contain a small amount of radioactive material play into the decision to have "smoke only" detectors?
One of our corporate planes had a tritium compass that got everyone in Buffalo customs very excited a few years back. Needless to say, we replaced the offending instrument without a repeat performance...
One of our corporate planes had a tritium compass that got everyone in Buffalo customs very excited a few years back. Needless to say, we replaced the offending instrument without a repeat performance...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comment i have is, these smoke detectors would occasionally trigger in high-humidity conditions on the ground with the cargo doors open. I have never experienced a smoke caution/warning in flight.
Yes, they are affected bei humidity AND on ground with open cargo doors vehicles exhaust can also trigger the warning.
In my airline we had plenty of smoke warnings in the air due to high humidity, most of them caused by fresh mangos.
On 320 I had a tricky one. Aft cargo compartment smoke light on overhead panel, but no bell/ECAM....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The British Airways' collective decision to carry on with an engine out isn't quite the same, but for my money its damn near - the proof for me would be in the simulator, if, on an engine failure with damage, (no N2 or N3, over-temp, hi vibs etc), I decided to carry on the mission using financial considerations as justification for the PPC/IFR ride, I would rightfully have failed the ride.
It turned out not to have been a false alarm.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Front right seat
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree. A couple of camera's in the hold feeding images to the same system that give us the taxi cam would be a rather simple, wouldn't cost much and wouldn't add any significant weight. If I can see a live feed of my a/c from the tail I can't see why I can't see a pic of the hold.
I'm not to sure how it would change the decision making process though. That will be a bit more tricky.
DH
I'm not to sure how it would change the decision making process though. That will be a bit more tricky.
DH
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the A380 is like the A320 series, when you fire the extinguisher in the hold you will get a continual smoke warning even if the original fire is out. You have no way of knowing (if genuine) if you have put the fire out, infact if there was a fire and you use the halon on it, it will still have lots of heat remaining even if no combustion remaining.
Paxing All Over The World
PJ2
Too true and before the line has been redrawn, more people have to die.
In 1929, the Stock Market crashed through unrestrained greed and the effect lasted for more than a decade. The US govt (and others) put big fat laws into place. In less than 80 years, those laws had been dismantled and another great greed had overtaken the whole world, that we will be paying for across more than a decade.
Now think about the laws helping to keep the wonderful flight safety record? No one can guess how long it will take to reach the low point because the prangs will happen at various places around the globe, under different jurisdictions. So we will have to have more prangs/near prangs before there is sufficient reaction from the public.
My hunch is that it won't start to look really ugly for another 12/15 years, due to the time it will take for the generations of FC and managers to work through the system. Many carriers are only as safe as they are because so many of their staff (in all positions) are experienced enough to have seen the lessons learnt at first hand. Once they are gone - then we are all at risk once again.
Why did it take 79 years for the Stock Markets to crash again? The men and women who had been in the middle of it were gone and their children were retired (or dead) so their grandchildren were in charge and they did not listen to their grandparents ...
... but given the industry's tremendous safety record and an increasing number of managers who have no idea where that record came from or why it exists, the industry has yet to re-draw the line between money and primary safety principles.
In 1929, the Stock Market crashed through unrestrained greed and the effect lasted for more than a decade. The US govt (and others) put big fat laws into place. In less than 80 years, those laws had been dismantled and another great greed had overtaken the whole world, that we will be paying for across more than a decade.
Now think about the laws helping to keep the wonderful flight safety record? No one can guess how long it will take to reach the low point because the prangs will happen at various places around the globe, under different jurisdictions. So we will have to have more prangs/near prangs before there is sufficient reaction from the public.
My hunch is that it won't start to look really ugly for another 12/15 years, due to the time it will take for the generations of FC and managers to work through the system. Many carriers are only as safe as they are because so many of their staff (in all positions) are experienced enough to have seen the lessons learnt at first hand. Once they are gone - then we are all at risk once again.
Why did it take 79 years for the Stock Markets to crash again? The men and women who had been in the middle of it were gone and their children were retired (or dead) so their grandchildren were in charge and they did not listen to their grandparents ...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...hr-divert.html
............................................................ ...
Worth a read, post 78 sums it up in one.
............................................................ ...
Worth a read, post 78 sums it up in one.
"...with no lighting: an orange glow
...with lighting: smoke"
Which means, I assume, that you would ignore the smoke detector alarm for - say half an hour - on the basis that you can't see a fire. Smoke detectors detect a far sooner than it can often be seen, and by definition the fire will be hidden as there isn't much flammable material in view.
...with lighting: smoke"
Which means, I assume, that you would ignore the smoke detector alarm for - say half an hour - on the basis that you can't see a fire. Smoke detectors detect a far sooner than it can often be seen, and by definition the fire will be hidden as there isn't much flammable material in view.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the beginning
At the start of the thread is a rumour about continued flight with an active lower cargo fire warning. Could anyone actually provide some substance to the rumour?
not qualified to say but
I was only looking at the photo of hold and addressing what a camera would see. Surely more information (or the chance of), must be a good thing ? Whether really useful to a decision maker or cost effective overall: dunno.