UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai

[ThatRedHatGirl]

Slight drift, sorry.

Sassy Pilot's Wife... I see your point but am not sure you understand the purpose of the Tempus.

Yes it's a machine, but it relays all the given info (vital stats etc) to live sat-phone connection to Medaire in the US, has trauma doctors & surgeons on standby. They then take that info and advise the crew on actions to be taken.

Sure, we are not doctors but it's designed to give them the info to tell us what to do (if there is no medical professional onboard)

We can also send still images/video to be used in aid of a diagnosis. Point of the tempus is not to replace a doctor but to allow more accurate diagnosis & decision makign with regards to diversions (espwecially on Ultra Long Haul ops)

And yes at my company in our medical supplies aside from AED we carry a full cardiac kit including all the proper medications (Doctor's Use Only)

[ExSp33db1rd]

"

In the 727, if there was a commotion in the cabin, or in cargo ops a strange noise or thump or bang coming from the back it was very reassuring to turn around and ask the FE to "Go back there and see what's going on".

Can't do that on a 2 crew A/C..."
.....................................................
Of course you can! It should even be the first thing you do.

So now we’re back to the one pilot philosophy again ?

I certainly wouldn’t send one member of a 2-pilot crew ‘down the back’ to investigate anything – suppose he never came back ? I say again, we started with a steward on the 707 freighter, even with a 4 man crew, but eventually lost him to the Bean Counters.

I had an occasion when we felt heavy vibration, cabin crew on the Intercom said a wing panel had blown off, passengers looking through to the ground. I refused to send either the F/O or F/E off the flight deck, all might have been necessary to deal with handling, comms, pressurisation, problems – whatever - that we thought might occur, but we had a supernumary F/O so he went back.

It was almost a non-event, Boeings even said it was not necessary for me to have returned to land as the 747 could fly with a hole 9 feet by 2 feet ( ? memory ?) in that area – my Manager asked what was I supposed to have done, got out and measured it ? Tough, I was back on the ground - but I was still glad the spare guy was on board.

We might eventually know if a third crew member in the DXB case would only have been a saviour or a third casualty, but IMHO that’s not the point.

Alone on the flight deck of a stricken aircraft, can you be sure that 'The Computer' will always be there as your willing helper? My experience is that they fail just when you need them most. ( cynic ? wot me ? )

However, it ain't going to be my problem ever again, it's your ....... ( was going to say funeral - complete to suit ! )

[wes_wall]

Number one priority when you have a fire - - Fight the fire immediately. Good thought, good priority, but with a two man crew, not practical, particularly when the fire is below you on another deck, or even behind you on the same deck. I question how effective a bottle of halon, dry chemical, or water is going to be if such fire is producing smoke to the extend that visibility is limited or not possible. Smoke hoods may provide O2, but will not aid in visibility under those conditions. Thus, an axe, knife, or other tools will likewise provide little assistance and value. Putting the airplane on the ground is paramount and an airport is always a nice choice. This crew attempted to do just that.

[ExSp33db1rd]

This crew attempted to do just that.

and how sad that they didn't quite make it.

So now, let the best brains in the business lock the bean counters out of the room and work out how to give the next crew in that position - and there will be a next crew- a better chance.

[DownIn3Green]

Ex speedbird...100% correct on your comments, IMHO....

Guppy...you just rang a bell with me re:leathermans, etc...

I was working for a low budget Cargo outfit out of MA...if anyone remembers the ill-fated Hawaii - Guam postal contract this carrier got in the early 2000's you'll know who I'm speaking of...

In any case, I was assigned to fly Hawaii - Majuro - Guam in the "Super" 727...

Could be done, but barely...(just ask "Mustang Sally")...

But I digress...about the leathermans etc, I carried one plus a Swiss Army knife in my flt bag...

Turns out we had to access the ramp and our A/C via the pax screening stations...ergo...no leatherman, no swiss knife...(kept for "safe keeping" by our handler)...

Now, What to do??? Company Ops Manual says all crew members WILL HAVE a "multi-purpose" tool while acting as a crewmember on duty...

So now I'm in violation of the FAR's by not complying with my Ops Man...

It's all B.S....Thanks Guppy for reminding me of just one more reason I take AMTRAK when I go on vacation....

The 3rd crewmember is an invaluable asset...anyone who doesn't believe that either hasn't "been there" or must be a PFT wonder or some kind of Cadet with 250 hrs and delusions of self importance with a brand new uniform...

[Graybeard]

Two crew

McDouglas promised ALPA to never build another two crew plane after the DC-9. When bigger engines became available in about 1978, DAC proceeded to design and build the stretched DC-9, calling it the DC9-80. ALPA howled. By this time, the three crew 767 and 757 were in initial production. Then, lo and behold, accident rates showed the two crew 737 had the best record, followed by the DC-9. The 3-crew 737 was not as good. That ended the controversy.

The UAL and other 3-crew 767s were modified at Boeing to 2-crew, and the DC9-80 got a name change to MD-80. Nobody could imagine 2-crew, 4-engine cargo planes at the time, you can bet.

GB

[EW73]

Hey Heracles...

funny you mentioned that...and I totally agree with your sentiment and your deductions, except...
I've discussed exactly this with several Classic Captains, and each and every time, they said that in the event of similar situation to that which occurred getting back to Dubai, that they would have elected to have the FO go and fight the fire, with the Captain and Flight Engineer getting it all back on the ground!

One of your final comments reminded me of that...

EW73

[GerardC]

Hi EW73,

In my company, the F/E was designated (and trained) to fight a main deck fire.

This left the two of us manage the side panel : not ideal either...

[2 Dogs]

simple and effective?

Vuzix Wrap Range from Inition

Surely something like this with a feed from the instruments giving alt, speed, AH would be fairly easy to rig and install.
Not for normal use but better than nothing in anemergency and cud be worn under mask.

[LastCall]

This was a very tragic accident indeed. However, I am more than a little curious about one aspect of the event.

I flew the 747-400 for several years back in the 90’s. Ours were combi versions with the upper deck cargo area located behind a bulkhead which was located approximately even with the back of the wing.

If I remember correctly the pressurized airflow within the aircraft was from front to back, and vented overboard through 2 outflow valves located on the underside and at the rear of the airplane. In this configuration I would imagine that any cabin smoke or airborne contaminants would be drawn towards the rear and vented overboard.

Based on this, I am curious as to how the smoke intensity could become so great to advance forward and permeate into the enclosed upper deck cockpit so as the two pilots couldn’t see the instruments.

Am I missing something obvious here? Just wondering….

[Huck]

Am I missing something obvious here? Just wondering….

I've read rumors that a pack was deferred. Nothing solid yet.

[BOAC]

Huck - I saw a post to that effect here a few days back but it appears to have gone.

[p51guy]

About a year after the Swissair 111 crash, I had smoke fumes throughout the cabin and cockpit. Our checklist said to shut off the non essential busses and see if the smoke decreased.

We were headed south out of MIA over the Keys. I immediately shut off the non essential busses with no checklist and declared an emergency and proceeded direct to MIA. I set up an autoland even though MIA doesn't have autoland. After completing the checklists we landed with smoke fumes throughout the airplane. The source was the galley oven. We shut that off instantly. Two weeks later they changed our checklist to what we did. A flight engineer would have done the same thing. We were in a 757 so didn't have that available. Coming out of a 727 makes it hard to not miss an FE.

[barit1]

Graybeard:

...By this time, the three crew 767 and 757 were in initial production.

IIRC Airbus was calling the A310 a "FFCC" (Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit) - and could be operated by either a 2- or 3- crew consist.

[fesmokie]

Last Call mentioned something that triggered this.

It's been 7 years since Ive flown the Classic but I remember there was a way that if a Crewmember wanted to go downstairs and smoke (Freighter) I would do something with the recirc fans and or the zone trim air producing a higher airflow in the flight deck.You could not detect smoke in the cockpit at all by doing this.
Now I'm just taking this from memory so don't flame me if I'm wrong.

[Basil]

I'd have thought it safer to smoke back in the upper deck - especially with horses and associated straw on board.
Smoking on our aircraft was not permitted, however I had nothing against smoking on the upper deck. I'd have been less than delighted if I'd found anyone smoking on the main cargo deck.

[fesmokie]

Our upper deck had bunks and seats. On the main deck at the bottom of the ladder was the best spot. Of coarse one would have to concider what kind of freight you had on board and make the judgment whether or not if it was safe to smoke. My point though was the fact that it was possible to re-direct the smoke to the aft part of the aircraft.

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by GerardC

In my company, the F/E was designated (and trained) to fight a main deck fire.

This left the two of us manage the side panel : not ideal either...

The thing is that all this discussion of aircraft design dropping the engineer's panel is superfluous to my mind. Even if the aircraft is a 2-flight crew design, nothing is stopping cargo operators from carrying a third crew member - say a relief pilot (of any rank) on the jumpseat - and training all their flight crew in firefighting. The only question there is cost, and with the margins in cargo operations being significantly tighter than thier pax equivalents it would be a big question.

That being the case, we still don't know what kind of fire this was, or whether it would have been possible for a third crewmwmber to fight it.

[hetfield]

The only question there is cost, and with the margins in cargo operations being significantly tighter than thier pax equivalents it would be a big question.

Very well said. Accidents like this tragic one are taken into account by the industry. The beancounters balance them against costs. A pilot's or even passenger's life is just a $$$ number.

Sad but true.

[Intruder]

The thing is that all this discussion of aircraft design dropping the engineer's panel is superfluous to my mind. Even if the aircraft is a 2-flight crew design, nothing is stopping cargo operators from carrying a third crew member - say a relief pilot (of any rank) on the jumpseat - and training all their flight crew in firefighting. The only question there is cost, and with the margins in cargo operations being significantly tighter than thier pax equivalents it would be a big question.

You cannot generalize about cargo margins. Some cargo carriers -- including UPS and FedEx -- are (and have been) wildly profitable, even while many passenger carriers have suffered huge losses.

More to the point would be whether procedures would be developed to actually use a 3rd crewmember as a firefighter. While FEs on our 747 Classics are allowed to go to the cargo deck to check out smoke, etc, our 744s do not have the proper O2 masks to do that, so a 3rd pilot would make no difference without a significant change in policy, training, and equipment.