UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: germany
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming everything happens at reasonable altitude, pilot just starts descending the aircraft and the containers become lighter, all the way to weightlessness (as in "Vomit Comet"). All is left is just to push them out.
a.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 44
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, that looks like little too far offtopic, but the bonus of the weightlessness is a significant decrease in friction. The push is still needed, that's perfectly correct.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 62
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's clear from reading the pilots on this thread that the universal consensus on smoke is to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible. It makes perfect sense, regardless the number of crew aboard. With that said, I have a question that has been eating at me since this accident occurred.
My understanding is that this plane experienced smoke whilst some 200nm from Dubai, with proper runways all around for diversions, the crew elected to press on back to Dubai. I'm almost certain these two aviators also were aware of the ticking clock once smoke is noticed, but nevertheless chose a much lower percentage route. My question is simply why?
Is it wrong to wonder exactly what it was being transported in that B744, and why it needed to get back to Dubai even at the expense of two lives and a $200 million dollar jet? Could these two pilots have both gone against conventional aviation wisdom and made a tandem bad decision with almost negative odds in their favor? That doesn't make much sense to me.
My understanding is that this plane experienced smoke whilst some 200nm from Dubai, with proper runways all around for diversions, the crew elected to press on back to Dubai. I'm almost certain these two aviators also were aware of the ticking clock once smoke is noticed, but nevertheless chose a much lower percentage route. My question is simply why?
Is it wrong to wonder exactly what it was being transported in that B744, and why it needed to get back to Dubai even at the expense of two lives and a $200 million dollar jet? Could these two pilots have both gone against conventional aviation wisdom and made a tandem bad decision with almost negative odds in their favor? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 62
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I didn't construct my question correctly? It certainly wouldn't be the first time. Never mind, I'll wait for the report.
EDIT: Thanks for the heads up. Based on my memory of the beginning of this thread, I thought the plane was over Bahrain when the first smoke was noticed, and that's 200+ statute miles according to google maps. I think you're saying they were in Bahrain airspace, not exactly over Bahrain, making 100nm to Dubai evaporate my question about decision making. Thanks again (sorry I should have re-read the thread start).
EDIT: Thanks for the heads up. Based on my memory of the beginning of this thread, I thought the plane was over Bahrain when the first smoke was noticed, and that's 200+ statute miles according to google maps. I think you're saying they were in Bahrain airspace, not exactly over Bahrain, making 100nm to Dubai evaporate my question about decision making. Thanks again (sorry I should have re-read the thread start).
Last edited by md80fanatic; 15th Sep 2010 at 02:24.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point, everything suggests a crew that against all odds behaved exceptionally, and did their utmost until that time that they could do no more.
excellent post and I completely agree with you. I have been a proponent of the 3rd crew member, and have read the mixed replies to this idea. Everyone agrees that early detection of fire/smoke is essential for survival. Do you feel a 3rd crew member could help in early detection, suppression by doing rounds and inspection?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Louisville, KY
Age: 63
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it wrong to wonder exactly what it was being transported in that B744, and why it needed to get back to Dubai even at the expense of two lives and a $200 million dollar jet? Could these two pilots have both gone against conventional aviation wisdom and made a tandem bad decision with almost negative odds in their favor? That doesn't make much sense to me.
What would it take for you, as a cargo pilot, to choose the 200nm descent to Dubai over somewhere much closer? I'm not a pilot, nor a journalist, just a very interested and concerned observer. I could never know what it's like to be on fire and miles from terra firma, but you can ..... and that's why I asked.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD80Fan. You are not wrong, the airplane could have been landed inside 100 miles by making an emergency descent, perhaps much less than that. Getting it down is usually the best choice for smoke and flames in the cockpit, indeed that is what is written in the emergency procedures and checklists. Why this crew did not do so is not something we can answer and might never be able to. The CVR should shed some light on what went through their minds but I doubt that things like what cargo they were carrying or a fear of being criticised had anything to do with it. They were experienced professionals and if there was something they could have done better, we can all learn from what happened and perhaps save some lives in the future.
Even for the most experienced and professional crew there is a period of denial. "this can't be happening to me!" before accepting it and acting appropriately. Sometimes this seems as if the crew is failing to act, although one of the first things you learn is not to be hasty. But there are a couple of situations that absolutely require quick action, such as engine failure on takeoff and wind shear on final. Fire in the cockpit might not seem to require this rapidity but really it does. Getting a 747 down from 35,000 feet in 15 minutes does take effort and the sooner it is started the best chance you will have. Idle power and full speed brakes must be used, then all you have to decide is whether to use the gear or maintain Vne. Finding an airport is not the first consideration.
I remember the Erebus transcript, with the PIC calmly calling for "go around power please" when they were only seconds from disaster and it taught me to always fly the airplane. If I needed to go up or down I made my airplane do just that. Never mind if I looked foolish in the process.
Even for the most experienced and professional crew there is a period of denial. "this can't be happening to me!" before accepting it and acting appropriately. Sometimes this seems as if the crew is failing to act, although one of the first things you learn is not to be hasty. But there are a couple of situations that absolutely require quick action, such as engine failure on takeoff and wind shear on final. Fire in the cockpit might not seem to require this rapidity but really it does. Getting a 747 down from 35,000 feet in 15 minutes does take effort and the sooner it is started the best chance you will have. Idle power and full speed brakes must be used, then all you have to decide is whether to use the gear or maintain Vne. Finding an airport is not the first consideration.
I remember the Erebus transcript, with the PIC calmly calling for "go around power please" when they were only seconds from disaster and it taught me to always fly the airplane. If I needed to go up or down I made my airplane do just that. Never mind if I looked foolish in the process.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GCAA Statement
The GCAA made a statement today, whgich I only heard on local radio on drive to DXB, (slighly foggy).
The crash happened because there was a fire in the cockpit, and smoke too. They crew were cleared to land in Doha, but decided to return to Dubai.
End of report.
Glf
The crash happened because there was a fire in the cockpit, and smoke too. They crew were cleared to land in Doha, but decided to return to Dubai.
End of report.
Glf
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3GUPPY writes,
Who put ants in your pants. I agree with much of what you wrote but I don't think MD80Fan was trying to smear anyone. I think it's a natural reaction to *wonder* about why the crew did what it did. That's all I see in MD80Fan's post...wondering, questioning, pondering. That's a far cry from smearing... unless you are one of those uptight SOBs that treat a mere question as a challenge to your authority. 
but do not smear the names of the crew when they may very well have done everything right.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me admit up front that I am only SLF - however, I have read this entire thread.
I thought a few (perhaps) interesting ideas got lost in the morass. In point:
It was mentioned that on some older aircraft, switches/controls could be more easily identified by touch alone. It would seem to be a very inexpensive modification to at least add an easily identifiable button/switch to the radio allowing it to be instantly switched to the emergency channel.
Along those lines - I think that if I was a pilot, the next time I was in a simulator, I might tie on a blindfold and see how fast I could find various controls by feel.
The inflatable plastic bag system (sorry, I've forgotten the name) seems like a no-brainer that should be required on all aircraft. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but I don't see it making matters any worse.
The idea of a third person firefighter type exchanging their services for free flights seems like a win-win for all involved - even better if the firefighter has at least some rudimentary flying experience such that he could work the radio or read off a checklist. Of course, it will never happen.
And - I have a couple of probably stupid questions...
Some here have suggested that venting the cockpit via opening a window might actually draw smoke from the cabin into the cockpit. If so, would (remotely) opening a vent in the tail of the aircraft pull the smoke the other way (out of the cockpit)?
If the plane sent out a message telling UPS headquarters precisely where the fire was located, then was that information also available to the pilots? If not, then why not? I'm going to assume that if the pilots immediately knew that they had a cargo fire rather than an electrical systems fire, then time would be saved as there would be no reason to fool with shutting down systems, etc.
Along the same line as the above - given the size/weight/relatively simple technology of remote cameras today, would it be possible to locate several cameras in the cargo area which could be accessed from the cockpit? That way it might be possible to determine exactly where/what the problem was before or instead of physically going to investigate it.
I thought a few (perhaps) interesting ideas got lost in the morass. In point:
It was mentioned that on some older aircraft, switches/controls could be more easily identified by touch alone. It would seem to be a very inexpensive modification to at least add an easily identifiable button/switch to the radio allowing it to be instantly switched to the emergency channel.
Along those lines - I think that if I was a pilot, the next time I was in a simulator, I might tie on a blindfold and see how fast I could find various controls by feel.
The inflatable plastic bag system (sorry, I've forgotten the name) seems like a no-brainer that should be required on all aircraft. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but I don't see it making matters any worse.
The idea of a third person firefighter type exchanging their services for free flights seems like a win-win for all involved - even better if the firefighter has at least some rudimentary flying experience such that he could work the radio or read off a checklist. Of course, it will never happen.
And - I have a couple of probably stupid questions...
Some here have suggested that venting the cockpit via opening a window might actually draw smoke from the cabin into the cockpit. If so, would (remotely) opening a vent in the tail of the aircraft pull the smoke the other way (out of the cockpit)?
If the plane sent out a message telling UPS headquarters precisely where the fire was located, then was that information also available to the pilots? If not, then why not? I'm going to assume that if the pilots immediately knew that they had a cargo fire rather than an electrical systems fire, then time would be saved as there would be no reason to fool with shutting down systems, etc.
Along the same line as the above - given the size/weight/relatively simple technology of remote cameras today, would it be possible to locate several cameras in the cargo area which could be accessed from the cockpit? That way it might be possible to determine exactly where/what the problem was before or instead of physically going to investigate it.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Guppy. Hmm, what if the cargo compartment cameras I suggested were thermal? Would that eliminate the problem of them being obscured by smoke? And I understand that it's a huge area and the amount of fire extinguisher to cover the entire area would be prohibitive - but if the fire could be located via camera, would it be possible to have a piped system of fire retardant so that you could just trigger (from the cockpit) sprinklers/jets in close proximity to the actual fire?
It probably wouldn't put the fire out, but slowing the flames/smoke and buying 5 or 10 minutes could make a huge difference.
I do think your suggestion of sitting in the plane with eyes closed figuring out and visualizing exactly where everything is seems like a great idea.
And this is probably a stupid idea (and feel free to tell me why it wouldn't work) - but if hazardous material HAS to be shipped via airplane - could some/much/all of it be shipped sealed inside a fire-resistant metal container? Perhaps even vacuum packed, as most things will not burn without exposure to oxygen.
It probably wouldn't put the fire out, but slowing the flames/smoke and buying 5 or 10 minutes could make a huge difference.
I do think your suggestion of sitting in the plane with eyes closed figuring out and visualizing exactly where everything is seems like a great idea.
And this is probably a stupid idea (and feel free to tell me why it wouldn't work) - but if hazardous material HAS to be shipped via airplane - could some/much/all of it be shipped sealed inside a fire-resistant metal container? Perhaps even vacuum packed, as most things will not burn without exposure to oxygen.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Green Heart of Europe!
Age: 65
Posts: 235
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations there is a large section regulating the type a packaging required for Dangerous Goods, specific to their nature of hazard.
No need to re-invent the wheel.
No need to re-invent the wheel.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Dubai
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here's an articles that were published in a local news channel
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CFE
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flight deck airflow
Sorry guys, I do not understand all that fuss about an over pressurized flight deck. I do not think anything like an airtight cockpit of a big pressure difference with the rest of the airframe is needed. What is needed is that a flow of outside clean air (pressurized and warmed) that flushes from the cockpit to the rest of the plane. Air flow pattern can be directed from key instrument panel sections toward the cockpit floor or ceiling through a limited number of exhaust points out to the rest of the plane. Inflow valves adjust pressure to regulate the airflow and to keep balance with the rest of airframe.
Pressure differential does not have to me much more than what you get in modern buildings that are over pressurized in winter to keep the cold out or, in Navy ships to prevent NBC contamination. You can still open doors without flying out.
As always, could be difficult to retrofit, but how about on initial design?
Pressure differential does not have to me much more than what you get in modern buildings that are over pressurized in winter to keep the cold out or, in Navy ships to prevent NBC contamination. You can still open doors without flying out.
As always, could be difficult to retrofit, but how about on initial design?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that this plane experienced smoke whilst some 200nm from Dubai, with proper runways all around for diversions, the crew elected to press on back to Dubai. I'm almost certain these two aviators also were aware of the ticking clock once smoke is noticed, but nevertheless chose a much lower percentage route. My question is simply why?
) - they were TALKING to Bahrain centre but over the Gulf, roughly equidistant from Dubai, Doha and Kish island. The only way, therefore, that they could have "landed" sooner would have been to ditch in the Gulf.
If anyone is interested in shipping Lithium batteries, this might be a good read. Interesting information on page 11 and 12 regarding passenger carrying spare batteries as carry on and checked luggage. I bet not many passengers knows this.
http://www.ultralifecorp.com/documen...egulations.pdf
Per
http://www.ultralifecorp.com/documen...egulations.pdf
Per
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is needed is that a flow of outside clean air (pressurized and warmed) that flushes from the cockpit to the rest of the plane.
Opening the smoke evacuation port is only useful if the smoke is generated on the flight deck. Otherwise opening this port will reverse the positive flow, and draw air in from the cabin.
Dave