UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly west my brothers...
Knew Matt, the copilot very well. A great stick, an awesome human being, wonderful husband and a proud dad to a beautiful 4-year old little girl. Former Marine grunt and one of the kindest people I've been around. I'm sure Doug, the captain was a good guy too, both were young, 38 and 48. God bless them and their families. 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to the smoke evacuation questions, with all packs running and 2 windows out a 744 will maintain diff (or close to it), so the smoke evac handle wont depressurise the airplane. Its too small a hole.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality
What about shareholder value? Any company is required, by law, to maximize shareholder value. Insurance will cover the hull loss (unfortunately incurring premium increases) but the time to acquire another aircraft and fit it out in full livery will be a negative for the analysts. Pilots are cheap (this is a business after all and management have well paid public relations consultants to deal with the "passed away" stuff). The markets response is what's really important for senior management. Let's move forward to the next compensation committee dinner and report and hope that the compensation consulting firm is more interested in the age of the scotch than whether the cargo had anything to do with the description in the manifest (this is a business after all and - hey - accidents happen - that's what corporate lawyers are for).
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nepal
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was somebody really flying the A/C?
Cockpit Crew Handling.
As we know, performing this in a simulator or in your mind while dirving the car to 7/11 WILL be completely different for a Crew Member when faced with REAL LIFE.
So this event as it unfolds is simply a shock, addrenaline rush, and requires the upmost in CRM and situational awareness.
I suspected UPS Crews are well training on Lower and Main Deck fires.
The Cockpit fire is a slightly diffferent issue that can be as with SR111 impossible to deal with or trouble shoot.
Possible that during this phase before the impact, the aircraft was simply allowed to be flown into the ground (CFIT).
I mean this was not a burnt out Landing Gear indication where both Pilots were trying to fix it, but a life and death struggle and perhaps FMA, GPWS terrain warnings were overheard, or even incapacitation played a strong contributing role here.
It this was a post Go-around, then we'll say later "Had they landed they would have had a 92% chance of evacuation".
If they were infact east of BAH or DOH and then elected to fly back to DXB, the questions will arise further towards WHY WHY WHY?
If it happened just after take off from DXB - another serario.
Maybe in this situation, this problem, for 2 Pilots - it was just too much workload?
As we know, performing this in a simulator or in your mind while dirving the car to 7/11 WILL be completely different for a Crew Member when faced with REAL LIFE.
So this event as it unfolds is simply a shock, addrenaline rush, and requires the upmost in CRM and situational awareness.
I suspected UPS Crews are well training on Lower and Main Deck fires.
The Cockpit fire is a slightly diffferent issue that can be as with SR111 impossible to deal with or trouble shoot.
Possible that during this phase before the impact, the aircraft was simply allowed to be flown into the ground (CFIT).
I mean this was not a burnt out Landing Gear indication where both Pilots were trying to fix it, but a life and death struggle and perhaps FMA, GPWS terrain warnings were overheard, or even incapacitation played a strong contributing role here.
It this was a post Go-around, then we'll say later "Had they landed they would have had a 92% chance of evacuation".
If they were infact east of BAH or DOH and then elected to fly back to DXB, the questions will arise further towards WHY WHY WHY?
If it happened just after take off from DXB - another serario.
Maybe in this situation, this problem, for 2 Pilots - it was just too much workload?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old Haltonian
Ok, can I make a design suggestion?
Fit the crew smoke hoods or goggles with Wi-Fi Heads Up Display with basic flight instruments.
This crew would have appreciated that!
Fit the crew smoke hoods or goggles with Wi-Fi Heads Up Display with basic flight instruments.
This crew would have appreciated that!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was thinking about that as well. Technology is available and the military uses something in that line, too. Provided that the electrical fire hasn't taken out vital systems yet, it could be useful in a dire emergency and the installation shouldn't be too expensive either.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wonder where the fire started. The door at the top of the ladder leading to the flight deck is normally kept closed and is designed to keep out smoke from the main deck cargo area, but that would be of little use if the fire was within the upper deck area, like a galley fire, or in the forward area of the main deck and burnt through the upper deck floor or back wall.
Let us hope the investigators have enough evidence left to positively identify the cause and make sure it never happens again.
Let us hope the investigators have enough evidence left to positively identify the cause and make sure it never happens again.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$14,975 for EVAS?
I think it's time for an e mail to the CEO and ask him how much his SVL of me is?
I think it's time for an e mail to the CEO and ask him how much his SVL of me is?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only an SLF but how much would an inert gas suppression system cost? i'd be guessing way less then even the "cost" of 1 crew, never mind a $250M jet.
just about any decent computer room has one, and most of them would be worth way less than a 744 and the freight.
aircraft are big pressure vessels, give the pilots 15 secs to get their masks on and then fill the plane with halon and dive to the nearest airport.
just about any decent computer room has one, and most of them would be worth way less than a 744 and the freight.
aircraft are big pressure vessels, give the pilots 15 secs to get their masks on and then fill the plane with halon and dive to the nearest airport.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would've preferred something similar to EVAS, an transparent inflatable airbag is far cheaper than a HUD. Think of $30 inflatable air mattresses.
The smoke goggles will just prevent you from having irritated eyes when you crash and die.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The poor guys were so unlucky not to have landed/hit the ground after the first approach, back into Dubai.
They obviously had enough control of the aircraft to carry out a go around. Whether they had the visibility during that maneuver, is another question of course.
They obviously had enough control of the aircraft to carry out a go around. Whether they had the visibility during that maneuver, is another question of course.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...in the Valujet example, if the crew had done that (and I have flown with that Captain and she was "top notch") maybe the outcome would have been the same...but if only 20 out of the 100+ on board survived, well
top notch????
top notch????
d-a:
It's VERY early in terms of what did happen and what didn't happen, but it could be they were unable to land the aircraft, as opposed to executing a "controlled" missed approach or go around.
They obviously had enough control of the aircraft to carry out a go around
Last edited by grizzled; 5th Sep 2010 at 04:00.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"aircraft are big pressure vessels, give the pilots 15 secs to get their masks on and then fill the plane with halon and dive to the nearest airport." The biggest problem you have with a cargo fire is that you have no way to ascertain what type of fire it is. Halon isn't a great choice for certain types of fire (like those involving metals) where it can make the problem worse not better. I'm no expert on fire suppression system in airplanes. But I know enough to know that like the parachute idea, if there was an easy panacea it would have been done by now.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 64
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's probably the smoke that got them, not the fire. Isolating the cockpit from the cargo hold and arresting the spread of smoke is within the realm, as is giving it an independent air supply - means of pressurization.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The center of the earths surface
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meat in the sandwich!
LURKER 999:
Well said, and a very good Question.
MOUNTAINBEAR: The reason In my opinion is that it is not cost effective! that simple:
I have never operated equipment of the mass of a 747, but I do know and remember only too frecking well now years later! how when we had a fire in the cockpit of a commuter/regional turbo prop, just how quick it all turned too ****e! we were lucky, and we could still SEE, although breathing was uncomfortable due to the acrid fumes, then I opened a window.
Having had some experience in the off shore oil/gas industry, they have for years used suppression systems as the likes of the below in the diesel powered generation rooms, and control rooms, and the like:
This I copied from Pro-Inerts Site, google it!
H/Snort.
Since its European introduction in 2003, Fike's innovative ProInert® has become widely accepted as one of the best performing, most cost-effective, and environmentally friendly inert gas fire extinguishing systems. Now that same technology is available in the United States, and other parts of the world requiring UL and FM approval.
Fike's ProInert offers all the benefits of other inert gas systems with several significant design improvements - enhancements that not only mean a superior product, but savings to your bottom line!
Most inert gas systems discharge from the nozzle into the protected space with a high surge flow rate, creating a hazardous pressure peak. These systems use pressure reducers further down the pipe network in order to mitigate safety issues, but also require both high-pressure and low-pressure piping.
Fire Suppression :: ProInert™
"Buildings" article: Understanding Gaseous Fire-Extinquishing Agents
Applications:
· Art Galleries
· Museums/Libraries
· Archive Storage
· Computer/Control Rooms
· Electronics/Data Processing
· Insurance Industry
· Military Installations
· Pharmaceutical/Medical
· Switch Rooms
The Complete Package
Since its European introduction in 2003, Fike's innovative ProInert® has become widely accepted as one of the best performing, most cost-effective, and environmentally friendly inert gas fire extinguishing systems. Now that same technology is available in the United States, and other parts of the world requiring UL and FM approval.
Fike's ProInert offers all the benefits of other inert gas systems with several significant design improvements - enhancements that not only mean a superior product, but savings to your bottom line!
Most inert gas systems discharge from the nozzle into the protected space with a high surge flow rate, creating a hazardous pressure peak. These systems use pressure reducers further down the pipe network in order to mitigate safety issues, but also require both high-pressure and low-pressure piping.
ProInert is Better
Because of its unique patented valve assembly, the ProInert agent enters the protected room within the industry required 60 seconds, but at a steady flow rate -- preventing destructive turbulence from occurring. This constant flow rate means you can use small-diameter, low pressure (and less expensive) piping from the inert gas container, all the way to the nozzle. And the necessary venting area is much smaller - reducing installation costs by as much as 60% on venting hardware.
ProInert's patented constant flow rate valve translates into a system that is not only safer for your staff and facility, but also saves you money.
Well said, and a very good Question.
MOUNTAINBEAR: The reason In my opinion is that it is not cost effective! that simple:
I have never operated equipment of the mass of a 747, but I do know and remember only too frecking well now years later! how when we had a fire in the cockpit of a commuter/regional turbo prop, just how quick it all turned too ****e! we were lucky, and we could still SEE, although breathing was uncomfortable due to the acrid fumes, then I opened a window.
Having had some experience in the off shore oil/gas industry, they have for years used suppression systems as the likes of the below in the diesel powered generation rooms, and control rooms, and the like:
This I copied from Pro-Inerts Site, google it!
H/Snort.
Since its European introduction in 2003, Fike's innovative ProInert® has become widely accepted as one of the best performing, most cost-effective, and environmentally friendly inert gas fire extinguishing systems. Now that same technology is available in the United States, and other parts of the world requiring UL and FM approval.
Fike's ProInert offers all the benefits of other inert gas systems with several significant design improvements - enhancements that not only mean a superior product, but savings to your bottom line!
Most inert gas systems discharge from the nozzle into the protected space with a high surge flow rate, creating a hazardous pressure peak. These systems use pressure reducers further down the pipe network in order to mitigate safety issues, but also require both high-pressure and low-pressure piping.
Fire Suppression :: ProInert™
"Buildings" article: Understanding Gaseous Fire-Extinquishing Agents
Applications:
· Art Galleries
· Museums/Libraries
· Archive Storage
· Computer/Control Rooms
· Electronics/Data Processing
· Insurance Industry
· Military Installations
· Pharmaceutical/Medical
· Switch Rooms
The Complete Package
Since its European introduction in 2003, Fike's innovative ProInert® has become widely accepted as one of the best performing, most cost-effective, and environmentally friendly inert gas fire extinguishing systems. Now that same technology is available in the United States, and other parts of the world requiring UL and FM approval.
Fike's ProInert offers all the benefits of other inert gas systems with several significant design improvements - enhancements that not only mean a superior product, but savings to your bottom line!
Most inert gas systems discharge from the nozzle into the protected space with a high surge flow rate, creating a hazardous pressure peak. These systems use pressure reducers further down the pipe network in order to mitigate safety issues, but also require both high-pressure and low-pressure piping.
ProInert is Better
Because of its unique patented valve assembly, the ProInert agent enters the protected room within the industry required 60 seconds, but at a steady flow rate -- preventing destructive turbulence from occurring. This constant flow rate means you can use small-diameter, low pressure (and less expensive) piping from the inert gas container, all the way to the nozzle. And the necessary venting area is much smaller - reducing installation costs by as much as 60% on venting hardware.
ProInert's patented constant flow rate valve translates into a system that is not only safer for your staff and facility, but also saves you money.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: left coast
Age: 72
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question about Oxygen masks
How is the breathing mixture (O2 plus Nitrogen etc.) achieved with these systems? I assume they don't just mix O2 with the ambient air. That would be bad way to deal with a smoky cockpit.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SNA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've lurked and learned from PPRuNe for several years; this is my first contribution.
There *was* a 747 with a purpose-built crew escape system, specifically NASA's Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. It was installed during the "drop" test when the orbiter Enterprise was released off the back of the 747 over Edwards AFB.
The crew wore parachutes during the rather risky test flights. If they started an evac sequence, about 30 cabin windows along the fuselage would be blown out by squibs to cause rapid but controlled depressurization. A hatch about 30 feet behind the nose gear would be jetissoned after the pressure equalized. The route from the flight deck to the hatch was a slide/tunnel similar to the ones in kid's playgrounds.
I had a very keen interest in aviation even as a kid. My friend's dad was a bigwig on the Shuttle program and thanks to him I got a tour of the inside of the SCA and was a semi-VIP guest at 3 of the glide tests. An engineer on the SCA was nice enough to answer my zillion kid's questions, including the escape system.
About 10 years ago the SCA was on static display at one of the last Edwards airshows. I noticed the escape system was removed. The pilot said it predated him, but he knew a lot about it. He heard it always made everyone very nervous so it was disabled as soon as the test flights were finished. He also said that had anyone actually used the system they probably would have gone into #2 or #3 according to later CAD / CFD analysis.
Pointing out an actual example of 2 points already made.....Parachuting out of a transport jet is tricky and risky even with a purpose-built system. And, the safety system can impose a new set of risks.
BTW, the original SCA is a converted AA bird; the second is a JAL 747SR. Altitude is limited to FL240 when the shuttle is on top due to cold temp limits on some shuttle systems. That's why the ferry flights require a mid-continent fuel stop.
Most important of course is the UPS crew and those they left behind. The cause of the accident will hopefully help advance safety, especially for inflight fires.
There *was* a 747 with a purpose-built crew escape system, specifically NASA's Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. It was installed during the "drop" test when the orbiter Enterprise was released off the back of the 747 over Edwards AFB.
The crew wore parachutes during the rather risky test flights. If they started an evac sequence, about 30 cabin windows along the fuselage would be blown out by squibs to cause rapid but controlled depressurization. A hatch about 30 feet behind the nose gear would be jetissoned after the pressure equalized. The route from the flight deck to the hatch was a slide/tunnel similar to the ones in kid's playgrounds.
I had a very keen interest in aviation even as a kid. My friend's dad was a bigwig on the Shuttle program and thanks to him I got a tour of the inside of the SCA and was a semi-VIP guest at 3 of the glide tests. An engineer on the SCA was nice enough to answer my zillion kid's questions, including the escape system.
About 10 years ago the SCA was on static display at one of the last Edwards airshows. I noticed the escape system was removed. The pilot said it predated him, but he knew a lot about it. He heard it always made everyone very nervous so it was disabled as soon as the test flights were finished. He also said that had anyone actually used the system they probably would have gone into #2 or #3 according to later CAD / CFD analysis.
Pointing out an actual example of 2 points already made.....Parachuting out of a transport jet is tricky and risky even with a purpose-built system. And, the safety system can impose a new set of risks.
BTW, the original SCA is a converted AA bird; the second is a JAL 747SR. Altitude is limited to FL240 when the shuttle is on top due to cold temp limits on some shuttle systems. That's why the ferry flights require a mid-continent fuel stop.
Most important of course is the UPS crew and those they left behind. The cause of the accident will hopefully help advance safety, especially for inflight fires.