UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Forest, VA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPS 747 Cockpit Doors
Actually NONE of the UPS 747s have cockpit doors. There is a door at the top of the stairs entering the upper deck, but only a curtin between the cockpit and the jumpseat area. The curtin, in fact, is requirred to be open for all takeoff and landings!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Urgent call for fire suppression on cargo aircraft!
I have already posted this on the Freight Dog Forum, but felt that it was relevant to this thread...
It is looking very likely that the UPS cargo aircraft that came down in DXB had a fire in the main deck hold. I am appauled that to this day, there is still no regulatory mandate for cargo aircraft to have fire suppression in their main deck holds (Only required in the lower FWD and AFT holds). I would have thought that after two recent previous events which resulted in hull losses due to fire (FedEx 1406 and UPS 1307), the FAA would start taking this matter very seriously. What will it take for things to change?
I have appealed to the FAA to mandate fire suppression in main deck holds and I urge you all to do the same!
It is worth noting that the NTSB have called for this change through recommendations several times! The FAA responded in a letter two days after the UPS accident in Dubai (Coincidental), apparantly stating it would be too expensive!
I salute FedEx for taking the initiative to install fire suppressant to their cargo fleet. I implore you all to press the regulators for this to be standard as soon as possible before more lives are lost. Not just to pilots but to the general public on the ground.
Why should passenger carrying aircraft be given stricter regulation over cargo aircraft?
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
It is looking very likely that the UPS cargo aircraft that came down in DXB had a fire in the main deck hold. I am appauled that to this day, there is still no regulatory mandate for cargo aircraft to have fire suppression in their main deck holds (Only required in the lower FWD and AFT holds). I would have thought that after two recent previous events which resulted in hull losses due to fire (FedEx 1406 and UPS 1307), the FAA would start taking this matter very seriously. What will it take for things to change?
I have appealed to the FAA to mandate fire suppression in main deck holds and I urge you all to do the same!
It is worth noting that the NTSB have called for this change through recommendations several times! The FAA responded in a letter two days after the UPS accident in Dubai (Coincidental), apparantly stating it would be too expensive!
I salute FedEx for taking the initiative to install fire suppressant to their cargo fleet. I implore you all to press the regulators for this to be standard as soon as possible before more lives are lost. Not just to pilots but to the general public on the ground.
Why should passenger carrying aircraft be given stricter regulation over cargo aircraft?
Class E to Class C ASAP!!!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FedEx Fire suppression!
Please look at this video...
Industry First Onboard Automatic Fire Suppression System | FedEx Global Newsroom
Industry First Onboard Automatic Fire Suppression System | FedEx Global Newsroom
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA responded in a letter two days after the UPS accident in Dubai (Coincidental), apparantly stating it would be too expensive!
At this very moment there are millions of individual packages in the air. Let’s say that all freight companies charge an extra 50 cents per package, irrespective of size or weight. This money, which would very soon add up to $millions, goes to a central fund to pay for R & D on the best suppression systems. Once these are proven the constant flow of money goes to pay for installations.
The whole thing could be kicked off very quickly and is easily administered. Let’s say it starts in January. During that month air-freight company ABC ships 5 million packages – the figures are easily seen from the records – then ABC owes the fund $2.5M less a tiny percentage for administration.
Call it the Air Freight Fire Fighting Fund and no one would mind the extra 50 cents.
Anyone?
PS. By sheer coincidence, and for the first time in months, a FedEx van has just pulled up outside my window. Karma?
Last edited by forget; 24th Sep 2010 at 11:29.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA use of the words "too expensive" typically refer to mandated requirements that go beyond current regulations governing all aircraft in class.
Thus it is presumed that the current regulations are safe enough if all procedures and design requirements are followed. To go beyond this requirement places an additional burden on the economics of design and manufacture or operating an aircraft and as such a demonstration of benefit must be shown versus retro of a fleet.
There are two critical items mising in the plethora of words on internet boards.
The facts are not yet obvious to us: were presumed procedures followed or if not should that not be where corrective action is easier taken?
What are all costs associated with mandated changes over and above current requirements, taken into account , out of service time, hangar costs, manpower available, cost of parts, etc. versus number of lives saved, versus number of lives lost becuase the proposed change is never perfect and may result in causing a different type of accident?
So we can continue our "what if" discussions but lets be careful about presuming how simple a fix is for somebody else to adopt.
Thus it is presumed that the current regulations are safe enough if all procedures and design requirements are followed. To go beyond this requirement places an additional burden on the economics of design and manufacture or operating an aircraft and as such a demonstration of benefit must be shown versus retro of a fleet.
There are two critical items mising in the plethora of words on internet boards.
The facts are not yet obvious to us: were presumed procedures followed or if not should that not be where corrective action is easier taken?
What are all costs associated with mandated changes over and above current requirements, taken into account , out of service time, hangar costs, manpower available, cost of parts, etc. versus number of lives saved, versus number of lives lost becuase the proposed change is never perfect and may result in causing a different type of accident?
So we can continue our "what if" discussions but lets be careful about presuming how simple a fix is for somebody else to adopt.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would have to involve all the air freight companies, including Speedpost. It's a great idea, one which the Insurers should back.
Now wait for the knockers and naysayers....
Now wait for the knockers and naysayers....
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Louisville, KY
Age: 62
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPS 9601 a 747-400 just landed in DXB. This airplane will fly the two deceased
UPS pilots back to Louisville shortly.
FlightAware > United Parcel Service #9601 > 20-Sep-2010 > KSDF-OMDB
UPS pilots back to Louisville shortly.
FlightAware > United Parcel Service #9601 > 20-Sep-2010 > KSDF-OMDB
Last edited by RustyNuts; 25th Sep 2010 at 23:20.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. preparing to further regulate air cargo shipments of lithium ion batteries.
Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com
Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article.
That is new.
One of the pilots apparently left the cockpit to try to fight the flames but never returned, said people familiar with data gathered by investigators.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SaturnV
U.S. preparing to further regulate air cargo shipments of lithium ion batteries.
Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com
Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com
Without such systems, pilots who get fire warnings from the cargo hold often must resort to making emergency descents to depressurize the aircraft and try to starve the flames of oxygen. FAA officials didn't have any immediate comment.
I guess the FAA didn't comment because the concept of using an emergency descent to depressurize had them a bit confused... 
to depressurize the aircraft and try to starve the flames of oxygen
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Florida, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming you're at cruise altitude and there is not a runway available for an immediate descent and landing, the 767 (and maybe the other Boeings) Cargo Fire procedure is to starve the fire of oxygen by descending (or climbing) to FL250 while depressurizing the aircraft. The 767 is depressurized by going to a reduced flow on a single pack. (I assume the descent to 250 is for crew physiological reasons, but don't know that for a fact.)
We are given no data as to how long this procedure takes to attain a PA of 25,000 feet, but I think it might be helpful to turn off all packs for a while and fully open the outflow valve to hurry up the process. After attaining the pressure altitude of 25,000, turning on a pack for equipment cooling and crew heating would probably be required. (Being a cargo aircraft, we don't have to worry about the pax. However, in a pax aircraft, there are people in the container that hopefully would put out a fire before it got too big to manage.)
Any thoughts?
We are given no data as to how long this procedure takes to attain a PA of 25,000 feet, but I think it might be helpful to turn off all packs for a while and fully open the outflow valve to hurry up the process. After attaining the pressure altitude of 25,000, turning on a pack for equipment cooling and crew heating would probably be required. (Being a cargo aircraft, we don't have to worry about the pax. However, in a pax aircraft, there are people in the container that hopefully would put out a fire before it got too big to manage.)
Any thoughts?
Last edited by F111UPS767; 3rd Oct 2010 at 23:25.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 767 (and maybe the other Boeings) Cargo Fire procedure is to starve the fire of oxygen by descending to FL250 while depressurizing the aircraft.
I blame the Obama Administration. This is an outrage!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hotel
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey MB
Boeing actually has thought about that. The "Main Deck Fire" checklist says that you should "climb or descent" to 25000 feet.
Wonder if following that checklist would have helped the UPS guys? I hope the investigation will give us some clues about that.
Boeing actually has thought about that. The "Main Deck Fire" checklist says that you should "climb or descent" to 25000 feet.
Wonder if following that checklist would have helped the UPS guys? I hope the investigation will give us some clues about that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ernestkgann writes:
The esteemed owners of this site may have to make an appropriate venue on these boards for UAV people. You will find that part of the psychology of pilots is the actual flying, remove that and there isn't much desire in that group to participate.
The esteemed owners of this site may have to make an appropriate venue on these boards for UAV people. You will find that part of the psychology of pilots is the actual flying, remove that and there isn't much desire in that group to participate.
In most cases, by the time a pilot gets to sit in the left-hand seat of any aircraft with pax aboard, that person has "participated" in many hundreds of hours of training - in flying a plane, in calculating weights and balances, in understanding weather, in learning literally thousands of minutia regulations.
And I'll guess here, about 85% of them do it because they love flight and want to spend their working careers aloft.
There are many working pilots who participate in these forums, as well as many who are hopeful of becoming pilots and some who gave the idea up long ago when they discovered they didn't have the right mentality for it. I'm in that last group, by the way.
... and writes again:
No doubt the advent of remotely piloted aircraft fits in there somewhere and as a group we are nearing the cross roads of the benefits of automation versus human/manual flying.
No doubt the advent of remotely piloted aircraft fits in there somewhere and as a group we are nearing the cross roads of the benefits of automation versus human/manual flying.
Clearly when you entered into the conversation, you did so with an agenda. You finally outed yourself, that's all.
It's utter hogwash. Artificial intelligence is difficult to do with supercomputers, let alone the limited amount of processing you can loft into the air and/or reliably link to on the ground.
Lastly, ernestkgann, I have to comment on your choice of screenname here. The *real* Mr. Gann passed away nearly 20 years ago but if he were alive, he would certainly not appreciate the type of posts you commit using his moniker.
RR
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Patty
If whatever started the fire had it's own oxidiser then depressurisation is not going to prevent its continued combustion.
It might help with other cargo that has been set alight.
I'm not certain that lithium batteries contain enough oxidiser to continue burning with little external oxygen, but the real problem is that they tend to be shipped at least partially charged because if the voltage is allowed to drop too low then the battery becomes damaged and is of little use. Hence there's plenty of stored energy to generate heat. Even modern NiMH batteries are going this way, the hybrid versions have a much lower self discharge rate so are now charged after manufacture and are advertised as "ready-to-use".
If whatever started the fire had it's own oxidiser then depressurisation is not going to prevent its continued combustion.
It might help with other cargo that has been set alight.
I'm not certain that lithium batteries contain enough oxidiser to continue burning with little external oxygen, but the real problem is that they tend to be shipped at least partially charged because if the voltage is allowed to drop too low then the battery becomes damaged and is of little use. Hence there's plenty of stored energy to generate heat. Even modern NiMH batteries are going this way, the hybrid versions have a much lower self discharge rate so are now charged after manufacture and are advertised as "ready-to-use".
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 81
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rottenray:
Such programmers seem akin to statists who would replace the "inefficiency" of the free market with central planners.
The absurdity of this is illustrated by a common #2 pencil. A slender rod of graphite, encased in a wooden tube, with a natural rubber bit secured by a metal shell. Many technologies combine to form a simple instrument. Is a government factory likely to invent such a complex/simple device?
Did a government invent the violin, or the artificial horizon, or for that matter the airplane?
Don't get me wrong; I've done a lot of programming, mostly for my own applications. I solved a LOT of problems, but realized that solving others would likely cause more harm than good. Removing the human element was thus unwise.
I'll throw my $0.02 in. Automation has to go a long, long way to replace the human element in piloting an aircraft. There is a notion amongst smug programmers that all they need is a "concept" and enough "examples" in order to successfully mimic the advanced decision-making process even the least smart of humans use on a daily basis to sh*t and then wipe the backside.
The absurdity of this is illustrated by a common #2 pencil. A slender rod of graphite, encased in a wooden tube, with a natural rubber bit secured by a metal shell. Many technologies combine to form a simple instrument. Is a government factory likely to invent such a complex/simple device?
Did a government invent the violin, or the artificial horizon, or for that matter the airplane?
Don't get me wrong; I've done a lot of programming, mostly for my own applications. I solved a LOT of problems, but realized that solving others would likely cause more harm than good. Removing the human element was thus unwise.
Help Wanted!
Boeing actually has thought about that. The "Main Deck Fire" checklist says that you should "climb or descent" to 25000 feet.
Wonder if following that checklist would have helped the UPS guys? I hope the investigation will give us some clues about that.
Wonder if following that checklist would have helped the UPS guys? I hope the investigation will give us some clues about that.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F111ups767 . . .
"Assuming you're at cruise altitude and there is not a runway available for an immediate descent and landing. . . "
After this UPS crash, the mind-set of having to land on a pavement at a suitable airport is no longer practical reality.
