UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 747 employs a ram air system that does somewhat like the air vent in your car...but have you ever tried to drive an 830,000 lb car blind, with a fire on board, producing more smoke that you can possibly remove? Probably not.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: abu dhabi
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
there is also an article in Emirates 24/7 here in UAE mentioning another pilot who was in the air (Bahraini Airspace) at the same time who heard the whole thing over the radio and he says the same as your source.
there is also an article in Emirates 24/7 here in UAE mentioning another pilot who was in the air (Bahraini Airspace) at the same time who heard the whole thing over the radio and he says the same as your source.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Msg received today from a usually reliable source...
Your "source" is not very reliable.
All of the UPS 744s have cockpit doors.
UPS MD11s have solid barriers between the cargo compartment and the front end, and they have cockpit doors.
In fact, every airplane in the UPS fleet has a solid bulkhead between the cockpit and the cargo compartment.
The O2 masks were changed on 2 airplanes to standardize cockpit configurations within the 747 fleet. (And at this point we don't know if a full face mask would have made one bit of difference regarding the outcome of this event, as we don't have the facts yet.)
Stop posting hearsay.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@SNS3Guppy
"this is something I addressed earlier in the thread. Having said that, however, I worked in very close proximity to a number of unmanned assets in an area near where this happened, fairly recently, and I can tell you that the single biggest threat I faced wasn't IED's, wasn't rockets, wasn't mortars or missiles, but unmanned aircraft. I can't discuss much more than that, but I will say that whatever pie-eyed starry admiration you may have for them based on what you've seen on CNN is very misplaced, as is anything you think you know about their capabilities."
Sorry, I missed that part of the thread, could you reiterate for me? I do wonder what you observed to be the main problem with the unmanned aircraft, was it the machine, or the way in which it was operated?
"this is something I addressed earlier in the thread. Having said that, however, I worked in very close proximity to a number of unmanned assets in an area near where this happened, fairly recently, and I can tell you that the single biggest threat I faced wasn't IED's, wasn't rockets, wasn't mortars or missiles, but unmanned aircraft. I can't discuss much more than that, but I will say that whatever pie-eyed starry admiration you may have for them based on what you've seen on CNN is very misplaced, as is anything you think you know about their capabilities."
Sorry, I missed that part of the thread, could you reiterate for me? I do wonder what you observed to be the main problem with the unmanned aircraft, was it the machine, or the way in which it was operated?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: not here
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy has the floor and the answer in one, a corollary of which is that every unmanned airplane or vehicle is just that, unmanned.
You would never convince the traveling public to get into an unmanned vehicle that operates in more than two dimensions. Whenever called upon to travel in back, I am part of the traveling public.
What about trains, I hear you ask.
Trains operate in two dimensions. Airliners operate in three. The difference is vast and fully misunderstood by the posters who suggest remote control, proof of which we have Guppy to validate from experience.
QED.
Why not just provide the proper equipment to enable the pilot to see through the smoke? Better still, more stringent prosecution of wiful violations and misleading information provided to shippers.
Money talks.
You would never convince the traveling public to get into an unmanned vehicle that operates in more than two dimensions. Whenever called upon to travel in back, I am part of the traveling public.
What about trains, I hear you ask.
Trains operate in two dimensions. Airliners operate in three. The difference is vast and fully misunderstood by the posters who suggest remote control, proof of which we have Guppy to validate from experience.
QED.
Why not just provide the proper equipment to enable the pilot to see through the smoke? Better still, more stringent prosecution of wiful violations and misleading information provided to shippers.
Money talks.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@big white bird
Not quite sure what you are trying to say. When we talk about unmanned aircraft, we should remember that they generally are not actually unmanned, just that the operator is not in the aircraft. Hence they are subject to all the normal human factors of aircraft operation, but with some further complicating aspects, and this is where most UAV specific problems occur.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say. When we talk about unmanned aircraft, we should remember that they generally are not actually unmanned, just that the operator is not in the aircraft. Hence they are subject to all the normal human factors of aircraft operation, but with some further complicating aspects, and this is where most UAV specific problems occur.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holland
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps not quite relevant but quite few years ago I was on final at Franceville in Gabon flying a CL44 (Canadian version of the Bristol Britannia). In the back was about 22 tons of meat and vegetables. Suddenly, almost instantly, the whole aircraft was filled with a white-ish smoke. The smell unmistakably oil and where there is smoke there is fire. I could barely see the instruments and very faintly the runway. A go-around with a fire is not a very comforting thought.
Fortunately, at that altitude there is very little pressurization and both of us forced our side windows open giving me enough visibility to land the aircraft. The cause of this was an oil seal that blew in compressor (For pressurization). The oil into a hot compressor and the result was instant smoke.
When I read about this accident I shuddered at the thought of what those guys had to cope with. I had the advantage of know exactly what was in the back.
Fortunately, at that altitude there is very little pressurization and both of us forced our side windows open giving me enough visibility to land the aircraft. The cause of this was an oil seal that blew in compressor (For pressurization). The oil into a hot compressor and the result was instant smoke.
When I read about this accident I shuddered at the thought of what those guys had to cope with. I had the advantage of know exactly what was in the back.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resar, if the companies won't put a little inflatable plastic thingie through which to see the instruments in case of smoke on board without it being demanded by law, they sur as hell won't modify a 747 for remote control, with all the issues of integrating it into the highly complex systems. Not even talking about weight... And the ground infrastructure needed - with transmitters of the steering signal and also operators, trained and ready within minutes to take over- it's an illusion.
And the military won't let civilians use their channels. The north atlantic is under constant surveiilance by NATO, but do we get radar service?
And, White Bird, if a train operates in 2 dimensions you must be talking about it moving along the tracks (1 dimension) and time (2nd dimension).
In this case, you should view the airplane to be operating in 4 dimensions (space's 3 dimensions + time). Time is a huge factor for flight, much more so than for trains or cars which will just stop if the factor time is exceeded. (Actually, so will aircraft, the stopping is just really hard to survive...)
Nic
And the military won't let civilians use their channels. The north atlantic is under constant surveiilance by NATO, but do we get radar service?
And, White Bird, if a train operates in 2 dimensions you must be talking about it moving along the tracks (1 dimension) and time (2nd dimension).
In this case, you should view the airplane to be operating in 4 dimensions (space's 3 dimensions + time). Time is a huge factor for flight, much more so than for trains or cars which will just stop if the factor time is exceeded. (Actually, so will aircraft, the stopping is just really hard to survive...)
Nic
Admiral,
A train will be moving along the X and Y axis in the 3 dimensional space model.An aircraft adds the Z axis along which it can also move.Both trains and aircraft have time as a factor.
Three-dimensional space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A train will be moving along the X and Y axis in the 3 dimensional space model.An aircraft adds the Z axis along which it can also move.Both trains and aircraft have time as a factor.
Three-dimensional space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWT,, the train moves in 3 dimensions, right.
But it is controlable in only 1 by the operator - forward and back - hence no steering wheel. The automobil is controlable in 2 dimensions - steering wheel is for left and right, the gearbox and pedals is forward and back.
The aeroplane is controlable in all 3 dimensions.
The dimensions correspond to line - plane - space
Nic
But it is controlable in only 1 by the operator - forward and back - hence no steering wheel. The automobil is controlable in 2 dimensions - steering wheel is for left and right, the gearbox and pedals is forward and back.
The aeroplane is controlable in all 3 dimensions.
The dimensions correspond to line - plane - space
Nic
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resar...Rubbish ref "the aircraft is not unmanned, the operator is on the ground"
One of my first sim sessions during F/O upgrade training was "he does well but tends to overcorrect the sim...I'm sure this problem will correct itself once he feels the VERTICAL ACCELERATION IN THE ACTUAL A/C"...
So true...a ground operator can't react to gusty x-winds or nasty up/down drafts...
One of my first sim sessions during F/O upgrade training was "he does well but tends to overcorrect the sim...I'm sure this problem will correct itself once he feels the VERTICAL ACCELERATION IN THE ACTUAL A/C"...
So true...a ground operator can't react to gusty x-winds or nasty up/down drafts...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: that western skyline
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
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.
Cargo Matatu... I disagree. From a logical point of view the IATA DGR is a dog's breakfast. It's burdensome because it is poorly written and so full of ambiguous, cross referenced mumbo jumbo and myriad exclusions so as to be pretty dangerous at least to my military mind. It needs a massive re-write by a trained, rational, and aviation oriented editor. It needs to be published in a user friendly format. It is a disgrace imho.
Also, thoughts for the general group here: it occurs to me that the EVAS system which is receiving lots of attention in these posts, (not unreasonably), would be useless in a situation where there was anything too hot nearby (in the SwissAir MD-11 crash 12 years ago, there was molten material dripping from overhead on to the flight crew) and this would presumably melt the clear 'bag' material forming the smoke free zone, rendering such a system useless.
No need to re-invent the wheel.
Cargo Matatu... I disagree. From a logical point of view the IATA DGR is a dog's breakfast. It's burdensome because it is poorly written and so full of ambiguous, cross referenced mumbo jumbo and myriad exclusions so as to be pretty dangerous at least to my military mind. It needs a massive re-write by a trained, rational, and aviation oriented editor. It needs to be published in a user friendly format. It is a disgrace imho.
Also, thoughts for the general group here: it occurs to me that the EVAS system which is receiving lots of attention in these posts, (not unreasonably), would be useless in a situation where there was anything too hot nearby (in the SwissAir MD-11 crash 12 years ago, there was molten material dripping from overhead on to the flight crew) and this would presumably melt the clear 'bag' material forming the smoke free zone, rendering such a system useless.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the discussion here revolves around the crew's inability to see the instruments/radios.
Would a head-mounted display not go some way to solve that issue? You could have all the vital information displayed in there.
Admittedly, you still have to find the buttons/switches in the cockpit to make any changes or adjustments, but at the very least you are not blind.
Taking this a step further, it should be possible to generate a 'virtual' view of the entire cockpit displayed in these goggles, thus giving the crew a fighting chance.
Would a head-mounted display not go some way to solve that issue? You could have all the vital information displayed in there.
Admittedly, you still have to find the buttons/switches in the cockpit to make any changes or adjustments, but at the very least you are not blind.
Taking this a step further, it should be possible to generate a 'virtual' view of the entire cockpit displayed in these goggles, thus giving the crew a fighting chance.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being able to see out is the least of concerns. One has to navigate, and to do that one needs to be able to see instrumentation. The 747 is a numbers airplane; one needs to know airspeed and altitude, and needs to be able to program navigational equipment to get down. It does one very little good to stall on approach, or explode in a fireball off the end when one lands far too fast to stop.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 64
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regs & Equipment cooling
Gcca Mar 2010 released a NPA for the Carriage of Dangerous Goods on aircraft tightening the rules & checks. Kudos to them for recognizing the gap, Just bad timing.
As to the smoke in cockpit, yes the Air supply is from a differing source than that supplied to the cargo areas. However the equipment cooling for the flight deck instruments has 17 possible modes of operation some of which use FWD cargo air for cooling of the Flight deck displays & panels. That would be my suspect
The QRH has the equip cooling go to Override to enter mode ensuring air is not being dram from the fwd cargo area and is then dumped overboard by the smoke override valve. This would by my choice of suspect for smoke entering the cockpit from the cargo areas. No override . Possible smoke entry. The 3 source of possible air for the Equip cooling to the Flight Deck are Mix manifold air / Fwd Cargo / & reverse flow draw thru by differential pressure with smoke override valve open
Link FAA video of a Laptop Lithium Fire. Note that cooling, not oxygen deprivation is the only way to prevent thermal runawayhttp://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2007Confe...tingVideo1.wmv
As to the smoke in cockpit, yes the Air supply is from a differing source than that supplied to the cargo areas. However the equipment cooling for the flight deck instruments has 17 possible modes of operation some of which use FWD cargo air for cooling of the Flight deck displays & panels. That would be my suspect
The QRH has the equip cooling go to Override to enter mode ensuring air is not being dram from the fwd cargo area and is then dumped overboard by the smoke override valve. This would by my choice of suspect for smoke entering the cockpit from the cargo areas. No override . Possible smoke entry. The 3 source of possible air for the Equip cooling to the Flight Deck are Mix manifold air / Fwd Cargo / & reverse flow draw thru by differential pressure with smoke override valve open
Link FAA video of a Laptop Lithium Fire. Note that cooling, not oxygen deprivation is the only way to prevent thermal runawayhttp://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2007Confe...tingVideo1.wmv
Last edited by avspook; 17th Sep 2010 at 19:20.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Florida, USA
Age: 77
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that with a fire producing a large amount of smoke in a closed container (albeit with a relatively small outflow valve) that no matter how you set up the airflow system, the smoke will eventually (and possibly rapidly) fill up the entire container. Considering the massive amounts of smoke that can come from some fires, it doesn't seem to me that one can eliminate a large amount of smoke unless you have an exit path that is very, very large. Am I wrong here?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DownIn3Green
"Resar...Rubbish ref "the aircraft is not unmanned, the operator is on the ground"
One of my first sim sessions during F/O upgrade training was "he does well but tends to overcorrect the sim...I'm sure this problem will correct itself once he feels the VERTICAL ACCELERATION IN THE ACTUAL A/C"...
So true...a ground operator can't react to gusty x-winds or nasty up/down drafts..."
No doubt true, but completely irrelevant.
The autopilot is there to fly the aircraft. The question is, why could the crew of the AC in question not use its autopilot to save their lives?
You most likely know far more than me about the details of how much programming, physical manipulation etc is required to setup the presently installed AP and its limitation wrt to 3D nav, approach and landing.
My point is that we now have new autopilot technology (as can be observed in UAVs) which can navigate an aircraft completely autonomously, and of course the autopilot may be manually controlled from the ground (anywhere in the world) with a variety of existing comms links with (for example) click and drag waypoints, climbs, descents, and various configuration changes with ease.
Some people may believe that UAVs or their control systems are still inherently unreliable or do not have the full functionality required for complete flights. This is however demonstrably untrue, but the same fundamental technical and human system problems are present in UAV operation as with conventional piloted aircraft. This should not be seen as a reason to dismiss the technology and its potential to increase safety in situations such as the topic of this thread.
"Resar...Rubbish ref "the aircraft is not unmanned, the operator is on the ground"
One of my first sim sessions during F/O upgrade training was "he does well but tends to overcorrect the sim...I'm sure this problem will correct itself once he feels the VERTICAL ACCELERATION IN THE ACTUAL A/C"...
So true...a ground operator can't react to gusty x-winds or nasty up/down drafts..."
No doubt true, but completely irrelevant.
The autopilot is there to fly the aircraft. The question is, why could the crew of the AC in question not use its autopilot to save their lives?
You most likely know far more than me about the details of how much programming, physical manipulation etc is required to setup the presently installed AP and its limitation wrt to 3D nav, approach and landing.
My point is that we now have new autopilot technology (as can be observed in UAVs) which can navigate an aircraft completely autonomously, and of course the autopilot may be manually controlled from the ground (anywhere in the world) with a variety of existing comms links with (for example) click and drag waypoints, climbs, descents, and various configuration changes with ease.
Some people may believe that UAVs or their control systems are still inherently unreliable or do not have the full functionality required for complete flights. This is however demonstrably untrue, but the same fundamental technical and human system problems are present in UAV operation as with conventional piloted aircraft. This should not be seen as a reason to dismiss the technology and its potential to increase safety in situations such as the topic of this thread.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Moorings
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One broke loose in a Qantas(?) airplane a while back and wound up embedded in the overhead luggage bin behind the L1 door.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resar40
Some people may believe that UAVs or their control systems are still inherently unreliable or do not have the full functionality required for complete flights. This is however demonstrably untrue, . . ."
Keep in mind that UAVs are operated by the military and are funded by unlimited tax dollars. That's one of the reasons the government keeps the NUMBER of UAVs that have NOT returned to base a secret. In fact, hundreds have been lost, and not just in combat.
Just as the automatics in an airliner . . . everything works OK until something breaks, except that in a UAV the remote operator may lose control when the autopilot goes on vacation, or when the hydraulic system springs a leak..