Preliminary Report of Boeing 747-400F Fatal Accident, Dubai -3Sep10
Sqwak7700, I agree with you in principal and I'm not trying to knock down the F/O here but in my books he was still a low time pilot on type regardless of past experience.
I don't know about you or others but when new to a type rating it takes me more than 78 hours to get comfortable in a new aircraft.
All I'm saying is it could have played a role in this aggravated situation.
Under extreme stress like in this one sometimes "seat of the pants" flying is going to save you but most would require lots of hours on type (certainly more than 78 hours) to get the "feel" of the airplane.
I don't know about you or others but when new to a type rating it takes me more than 78 hours to get comfortable in a new aircraft.
All I'm saying is it could have played a role in this aggravated situation.
Under extreme stress like in this one sometimes "seat of the pants" flying is going to save you but most would require lots of hours on type (certainly more than 78 hours) to get the "feel" of the airplane.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the Long Grey Cloud
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IGh
I fear your assertions are wrong. Altitude (25,000ft. suggested by Boeing) does reduce the effects of fire. 21% Oxygen is available at all altitudes, but there just aint enough of it to sustain fire at 25,000ft. Try breathing, or getting a piston engine to work at that altitude....without supplemental oxygen or a supercharger. 
From the FAA website: [slide #12 of the presentation]
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2010Confe...isticsPres.pdf
From the FAA website: [slide #12 of the presentation]
Pressure dependence
The burning rate and flame spread decrease as pressure decreases.
The time to ignition scales inversely with pressure so as the pressure decreases the time to ignition increases.
The overall effect of reduced pressure acts to inhibit the fire.
The burning rate and flame spread decrease as pressure decreases.
The time to ignition scales inversely with pressure so as the pressure decreases the time to ignition increases.
The overall effect of reduced pressure acts to inhibit the fire.
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2010Confe...isticsPres.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of talk about DOH v's DXB, but I seem to remember we use to teach in the sim that if you ain't on the ground in 14mins with a fire on board that is not under 'control' you are dead meat!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then there is also the option of ditching?
The odds of surviving an open water ditching of a 747, not to mention a 747F with a bunch of 10' pallets that may be coming forward, can not be good.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I thought about the ditching option too..
I see the B747 freighter setup as the best for a water landing...
All the pallets are loaded on the main deck, none are at the level of the upper deck, and in the calm waters of the gulf, I don't see sufficient risk of the load taking out the flight deck high enough to gamble that against what has ultimately occurred.
All other freighter aircraft have their freight loaded on the same deck level as the flight deck, and therefore a much higher risk to the flight crew during a ditching.
EW73
I see the B747 freighter setup as the best for a water landing...
All the pallets are loaded on the main deck, none are at the level of the upper deck, and in the calm waters of the gulf, I don't see sufficient risk of the load taking out the flight deck high enough to gamble that against what has ultimately occurred.
All other freighter aircraft have their freight loaded on the same deck level as the flight deck, and therefore a much higher risk to the flight crew during a ditching.
EW73
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest QRH amendment for the 744 freighter has clarified the requirement for one pack to remain operating:
FIRE MAIN DECK
(4) MAIN Deck CARGO FIRE ARM switch . . . . Confirm. . . . . . ARMED
SATCOM will shut down to prevent overheating.
System shuts down two packs and respective PACK EICAS messages are shown.
(5) PACK control selectors . . . . . . . . . . One pack on, two packs OFF
! Select the pack control selectors that have the PACK messages shown.
WARNING! Either pack 1 or 3 must be operating to prevent excessive smoke accumulation on the flight deck.
FIRE MAIN DECK
(4) MAIN Deck CARGO FIRE ARM switch . . . . Confirm. . . . . . ARMED
SATCOM will shut down to prevent overheating.
System shuts down two packs and respective PACK EICAS messages are shown.
(5) PACK control selectors . . . . . . . . . . One pack on, two packs OFF
! Select the pack control selectors that have the PACK messages shown.
WARNING! Either pack 1 or 3 must be operating to prevent excessive smoke accumulation on the flight deck.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZimmerFly --- Thanks for that reference (??from the 2007 gathering??). Good pressure- data there, but other variables (ventilation needed to remove accumulated smoke in the ceiling-crown area) also affect choice. Also, this CARGO-ops event reminds me that the pilots have different choices (with no pax aboard) than in most historic fire mishaps [eg, cargo pilots now bring the Cabin Altitude up to 25000ft].
?? TELL ME -- does newest CARGO B747 include the designed-in Smoke-Chute to pull hot-smoke out of the Ceiling-Crown???
Or is the Outflow Valve still in the same location (beneath the main deck Cabin Floor)???
Re' the earlier lessons (biology acts on partial pressure of O2 but combustion is limited by CONCENTRATION of O2) maybe there is more to learn, and other variables acting to increase smoke concentration.
Decades ago, we faced repeated fire-mishaps, where mishap-pilots (or F/E) selected PACKs-OFF, in their mis-perception that decreased ventilation could HELP, by "suffocating the fire". But the PACKs-OFF choice then STOPPED any removal of HOT SMOKE from the ceiling-crown area:
?? TELL ME -- does newest CARGO B747 include the designed-in Smoke-Chute to pull hot-smoke out of the Ceiling-Crown???
Or is the Outflow Valve still in the same location (beneath the main deck Cabin Floor)???
Re' the earlier lessons (biology acts on partial pressure of O2 but combustion is limited by CONCENTRATION of O2) maybe there is more to learn, and other variables acting to increase smoke concentration.
Decades ago, we faced repeated fire-mishaps, where mishap-pilots (or F/E) selected PACKs-OFF, in their mis-perception that decreased ventilation could HELP, by "suffocating the fire". But the PACKs-OFF choice then STOPPED any removal of HOT SMOKE from the ceiling-crown area:
The Saudia and Air Canada cases provide lessons for pilots in the hazard created inside the cabin when smoke is allowed to accumulate: smoke is combustible, and may become the most flammable substance inside the cabin. In both cases, crews had turned OFF the Air Conditioning Packs while still in flight. Packs-OFF thus limited venting of the smoke, with their "hidden fire" threatening to ignite the accumulated smoke into a "flash fire". Pilots should be taught, just as are the firefighters, that smoke burns! That smoke should be jettisoned overboard. However, in the Air Canada case (DC-9) the loss of electrical power from normal buses had caused the pneumatic high-stage Augmentation Valve to close, thus limiting airflow during Idle-power descent (then later the F/O switched-off the Supply Switches which stopped all in-flow / out-flow). The Saudia aircraft landed with Packs Off, and furthermore had its Outflow Valve CLOSED. [Mine from decades ago.]
Last edited by IGh; 7th Apr 2011 at 18:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Florida, USA
Age: 77
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is 25,000 feet chosen for cruise in cargo aircraft (until further descent when a landing site is available) following a cargo fire? Why not stay up higher if you are already there? Is 25,000 feet a compromise chosen for physiological problems that could occur if one stayed higher? If at a pressure altitude of 25,000 feet, and descent is made in about 4 minutes to sea level, could that present a physiological problem?
When an airfield is available for landing, how far out and in what configuration should descent be made to land and minimize time in the lower atmosphere with its higher concentration of oxygen? Figure both for an average cruise altitude (35,000 feet) and also from the cargo fire level off altitude of 25,000 feet.
Example: Based on a single 757 simulator test, descent was made from 35,000 feet /.80 Mach / 270 KIAS. Gear and SB were extended. During descent, with gear down and locked, speed was increased up to 310 KIAS. Autopilot would not hold this configuration and was disconnected. Distance to 3,000 ft was about 25 NM and time about 4.5 minutes. (Disclaimer: Not sure the numbers and memory are accurate.)
When an airfield is available for landing, how far out and in what configuration should descent be made to land and minimize time in the lower atmosphere with its higher concentration of oxygen? Figure both for an average cruise altitude (35,000 feet) and also from the cargo fire level off altitude of 25,000 feet.
Example: Based on a single 757 simulator test, descent was made from 35,000 feet /.80 Mach / 270 KIAS. Gear and SB were extended. During descent, with gear down and locked, speed was increased up to 310 KIAS. Autopilot would not hold this configuration and was disconnected. Distance to 3,000 ft was about 25 NM and time about 4.5 minutes. (Disclaimer: Not sure the numbers and memory are accurate.)
Last edited by F111UPS767; 6th Apr 2011 at 18:34.
Before you get all excited about bringing the cabin to 25000 feet.
A lithium battery fire does not need additional oxygen. There is enough chemical energy in the batteries themselves to sustain burning.
A lithium battery fire does not need additional oxygen. There is enough chemical energy in the batteries themselves to sustain burning.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before you get all excited about bringing the cabin to 25000 feet.
A lithium battery fire does not need additional oxygen. There is enough chemical energy in the batteries themselves to sustain burning.
A lithium battery fire does not need additional oxygen. There is enough chemical energy in the batteries themselves to sustain burning.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain, we have a cargo fire!
OK, lets do the drill and get down fast!
No, cancel that, lets stay up here and let the flames die out!
But Captain, we have batteries in the cargo!
OK, lets get down now! Quick!
But Captain, we have other cargo as well!
OK, lets stay up here and let the flames die out!
But Captain, we don't have enough crew oxygen!
OK, let stay here until it hits 500 PSI, Then lets get down quick!
To be continued by the arm chair elite.
OK, lets do the drill and get down fast!
No, cancel that, lets stay up here and let the flames die out!
But Captain, we have batteries in the cargo!
OK, lets get down now! Quick!
But Captain, we have other cargo as well!
OK, lets stay up here and let the flames die out!
But Captain, we don't have enough crew oxygen!
OK, let stay here until it hits 500 PSI, Then lets get down quick!
To be continued by the arm chair elite.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the Long Grey Cloud
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IGh
As far as I know, every 747 from the first -100 to the last 744F has the same Sextant Mounting / Smoke Port in the flight deck crown. Outflow valves remain beneath the main deck floor. I have no information on the 747-8.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: 25,000 or land asap and smoke port
i could have sworn this was discussed before...
oh wait... yes, it was. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...own-dubai.html
oh wait... yes, it was. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...own-dubai.html
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i could have sworn this was discussed before... oh wait... yes, it was. UPS Aircraft Down In Dubai
Flight from Dubai to Germany
Emergency with Barhain Control and emergency descent to 10000 ft
Fire in flight deck
unable to read instruments or changing freq with UAE control
several a/c relay transmission and radar vectors from UAE control on to Barhain freq
Last position on OMDB was 7000 ft - 6 nm final 12L.
Emergency with Barhain Control and emergency descent to 10000 ft
Fire in flight deck
unable to read instruments or changing freq with UAE control
several a/c relay transmission and radar vectors from UAE control on to Barhain freq
Last position on OMDB was 7000 ft - 6 nm final 12L.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great tragedy...and with a very modern aircraft.
its funny how we learn things in flying...tragic fires in the air...valuejet in florida, swissair near peggy's cove...and the one that had the most profound effect on me, EK Gann's fire in the C54.
In the book, "Fate is the Hunter" I'm sure many of you will remember how he threw the book away and found a hole and spiraled down to a landing. Remember?
Anyway, since that book made an impression on me and evaluating the three jet fires, I think ashling was right...get on the ground anywhere fast , even using barnstorming techniques instead of heading for an airport...unless you find yourself on top of one.
if you can, look out the window and head for what you[ve got...beggars can't be choosers.
Batteries can go on a ship...no oxygen generators, batteries, or other flamables on planes.
its funny how we learn things in flying...tragic fires in the air...valuejet in florida, swissair near peggy's cove...and the one that had the most profound effect on me, EK Gann's fire in the C54.
In the book, "Fate is the Hunter" I'm sure many of you will remember how he threw the book away and found a hole and spiraled down to a landing. Remember?
Anyway, since that book made an impression on me and evaluating the three jet fires, I think ashling was right...get on the ground anywhere fast , even using barnstorming techniques instead of heading for an airport...unless you find yourself on top of one.
if you can, look out the window and head for what you[ve got...beggars can't be choosers.
Batteries can go on a ship...no oxygen generators, batteries, or other flamables on planes.
lambert wrote...
"Batteries can go in a/c too - if they are packed and properly declared in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Regulations".
Perhaps but I still maintain that the batteries should not be charged at all. They can be charged at final destination prior to consumer delivery.
That's the only way to insure no thermal accident causing fires.
"Batteries can go in a/c too - if they are packed and properly declared in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Regulations".
Perhaps but I still maintain that the batteries should not be charged at all. They can be charged at final destination prior to consumer delivery.
That's the only way to insure no thermal accident causing fires.