Aircraft fire at Stansted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFALK: [quote]Any websites with pictures of this incident? <hr></blockquote>
Maxfli: [quote]I must say I was amused that RTE thought it relevant to show a Korean F-16 "Bomber" on fire and a pilot ejecting as relevant to the B737 ground incident in Stansted. I'm totally baffled.<hr></blockquote>
Is MFALK a journalist frome RTE?
Maxfli: [quote]I must say I was amused that RTE thought it relevant to show a Korean F-16 "Bomber" on fire and a pilot ejecting as relevant to the B737 ground incident in Stansted. I'm totally baffled.<hr></blockquote>
Is MFALK a journalist frome RTE?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not 100% sure if Ryanairs -800 has CFM56's. But if they are CFM's then it would hardly be off the wing yet given their (normally good) reliability. But whatever having spent rather too long in the engine maintenance business I know these things do happen and prove profitable for engine overhaulers.. .I've already seen some ridiculous statements in newspapers. 'They wouldn't let us get our luggage out of the lockers'. 'Some woman wearing high heels had to walk around the muddy field in her bare feet', oh dear. 'The cabin crew were shouting at us' Looks like the cabin crew earned their rather low pay then. Did a good job.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great job done by all involved !!
A/C evacuated safely in 45secs.
Believe the crew got no fire warning, they had info from the tower that there was smoke seen from #2 engine and this was confirmed by the fire crews. It is beieved that a bearing gave way leading to a core fire. The crew had reported a noticable vibration coming from the engine.
Again it was a job well done..! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
A/C evacuated safely in 45secs.
Believe the crew got no fire warning, they had info from the tower that there was smoke seen from #2 engine and this was confirmed by the fire crews. It is beieved that a bearing gave way leading to a core fire. The crew had reported a noticable vibration coming from the engine.
Again it was a job well done..! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seem to be a number of reports(media) that the flight crew were not aware of the fire until told by ATC.
If true, this is slightly worrying, as is the inference that it was the airport fire service that put out the fire, rather than any "in-engine" extinguishing system.
Would a 737 expert care to expand on this, giving the "real" picture?. . <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
If true, this is slightly worrying, as is the inference that it was the airport fire service that put out the fire, rather than any "in-engine" extinguishing system.
Would a 737 expert care to expand on this, giving the "real" picture?. . <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Newswatcher- This is not a problem! I'll explain as the concept is true of all aircraft and it works a treat - really since Pontius was a Pilate.
Fire Detection Systems and Fire Suppression Systems work outside the engine but within the pod. The analogy with a car is that the two systems are located round the engine, outside of the engine but under the bonnet. The detection system works on excess heat. If the fire is in the engine itself it is safe (after all there is a whole ring of flames in the combustors) but the temperature will rise and eventually set off a warning. If the fire is outside the engine the warning will be activated quicker as that is a bit more serious but the heat gets to the Detection System more quickly as it is closer!
Activating the extiguishers will do two things. Most importantly it cuts off the flow of fuel to the engine thus taking away one side of the Fire Triangle (the other two being Heat and Oxygen). It also floods the engine bay (the space between the pod and the engine) with extinguishant. Again, in the car analogy, it sprays in under the bonnet, not into the cylinders. If you sprayed it into the engine it would simply get blown out the back anyway! Any fire inside the engine will quickly burn out as you have removed the fuel supply and the engine itself will not burn. You may get some oil from bearings buring off as well, again quite safely.
We don't know what happened here but it sounds like it was a fire in the engine itself, not between the pod and the engine. This is probably why there was smoke but no fire warning - yet. Given time, and before any real damage occured outside the engine, temps would have risen in the pod and the Pilots would have instantly swung into action when the Detection System activated. The Fire Service will have simply put out any residual fires in the engine (as they like doing that sort of thing!) and I suspect the the boys in the Cockpit pulled the handle to just make sure there was nothing untoward smouldering in the pod as a sensible precaution.
As you can see, all quite safe and undramatic! Hope this answers your questions.
Regards, H 'n' H <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Fire Detection Systems and Fire Suppression Systems work outside the engine but within the pod. The analogy with a car is that the two systems are located round the engine, outside of the engine but under the bonnet. The detection system works on excess heat. If the fire is in the engine itself it is safe (after all there is a whole ring of flames in the combustors) but the temperature will rise and eventually set off a warning. If the fire is outside the engine the warning will be activated quicker as that is a bit more serious but the heat gets to the Detection System more quickly as it is closer!
Activating the extiguishers will do two things. Most importantly it cuts off the flow of fuel to the engine thus taking away one side of the Fire Triangle (the other two being Heat and Oxygen). It also floods the engine bay (the space between the pod and the engine) with extinguishant. Again, in the car analogy, it sprays in under the bonnet, not into the cylinders. If you sprayed it into the engine it would simply get blown out the back anyway! Any fire inside the engine will quickly burn out as you have removed the fuel supply and the engine itself will not burn. You may get some oil from bearings buring off as well, again quite safely.
We don't know what happened here but it sounds like it was a fire in the engine itself, not between the pod and the engine. This is probably why there was smoke but no fire warning - yet. Given time, and before any real damage occured outside the engine, temps would have risen in the pod and the Pilots would have instantly swung into action when the Detection System activated. The Fire Service will have simply put out any residual fires in the engine (as they like doing that sort of thing!) and I suspect the the boys in the Cockpit pulled the handle to just make sure there was nothing untoward smouldering in the pod as a sensible precaution.
As you can see, all quite safe and undramatic! Hope this answers your questions.
Regards, H 'n' H <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks H&H. I was imagining what might have happened if this had occurred in flight. I was not aware that the monitors were not planned to activate until the fire had become "uncontained".
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: wrong place
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the good fortune to be borne aloft by RR engines.As well as having external fire sensors these engines have sensors in the core of the engine which give early warning of overheat in the critical area of the engine which enables shutdown before serious damage or fire occurs.I`m not sure if the CFM56 is fitted with these.I believe there have been CFM56 failures in the past which have been difficult to diagnose with at least one leading to an accident.. .Glad to be flying RR!
newswatcher - "I was not aware that the monitors were not planned to activate until the fire had become "uncontained"."
Your statement is not quite correct and could be seen as being slightly alarmist! I'll explain. If there is a fire in the engine itself, this will cause the temperature on the engine casing to rise sufficiently to trigger the Detection System. The fire itself will be still be "contained" within the core. The Detection System, as well as the surrounding structure, is so designed that the Detection System will activate well before there is any structural damage - even if the fire were to start outside the core but in the pod. Yes, things might get slighly blackened but the structural integrity of the engine, pod, pylon etc is designed to remain uneffected.
The problem with fire Detection is that you have a great big fire in the engine when it is running, all be it well contained in the combustors. You have to make sure the Detection System goes off only when the fires appear in areas other than where the designers intended! As Tyrannosaurus says, individual engines do have additional measures where required/prudent. This is particularly true of the big fan engines. Smaller engines, for example on helicopters, stick with the more simple system as the engine is physically much more compact. In addition, there are other systems which are used to indicate that all may not be well with an engine; oil pressure, oil temperature, engine vibration etc. An engine can be shut down as a precaution when these other indications suggest that there is a problem - well before anything else happens.
I simply wanted to convey the overall principles to you so that, no matter what aircraft you see flying overhead or you are in (possibly of much more interest to you!!!), you will understand that the concept is to detect and extinguish the fire before it is a danger to the aircraft. You may see smoke and flames and the airport fire service running round having a great time but the structure itself is safe. An example of how things can look spectacular but not have much real effect? A chip pan fire! When that catches fire there is smoke and flame everywhere. Quickly move in and put your dishcloth over it to put it out (remove the Oxygen from the good old Fire Triangle) and all you have is some soot round the pan rim. The metal itself is structurally uneffected even though it looked like the whole world was about to end. And, no, I've not tried this one at home - touch wood!!!!!
Hope this has been of help.
Cheers, H 'n' H
[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
Your statement is not quite correct and could be seen as being slightly alarmist! I'll explain. If there is a fire in the engine itself, this will cause the temperature on the engine casing to rise sufficiently to trigger the Detection System. The fire itself will be still be "contained" within the core. The Detection System, as well as the surrounding structure, is so designed that the Detection System will activate well before there is any structural damage - even if the fire were to start outside the core but in the pod. Yes, things might get slighly blackened but the structural integrity of the engine, pod, pylon etc is designed to remain uneffected.
The problem with fire Detection is that you have a great big fire in the engine when it is running, all be it well contained in the combustors. You have to make sure the Detection System goes off only when the fires appear in areas other than where the designers intended! As Tyrannosaurus says, individual engines do have additional measures where required/prudent. This is particularly true of the big fan engines. Smaller engines, for example on helicopters, stick with the more simple system as the engine is physically much more compact. In addition, there are other systems which are used to indicate that all may not be well with an engine; oil pressure, oil temperature, engine vibration etc. An engine can be shut down as a precaution when these other indications suggest that there is a problem - well before anything else happens.
I simply wanted to convey the overall principles to you so that, no matter what aircraft you see flying overhead or you are in (possibly of much more interest to you!!!), you will understand that the concept is to detect and extinguish the fire before it is a danger to the aircraft. You may see smoke and flames and the airport fire service running round having a great time but the structure itself is safe. An example of how things can look spectacular but not have much real effect? A chip pan fire! When that catches fire there is smoke and flame everywhere. Quickly move in and put your dishcloth over it to put it out (remove the Oxygen from the good old Fire Triangle) and all you have is some soot round the pan rim. The metal itself is structurally uneffected even though it looked like the whole world was about to end. And, no, I've not tried this one at home - touch wood!!!!!
Hope this has been of help.
Cheers, H 'n' H
[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Hot 'n' High ]</p>
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, Ryanair made it international with this one! Our local version of The Times (well, sort of..... ) , the Oshkosh Northwestern, had an article about this incident - thats a real adventure for them! Reporting something outwith Wisconsin is quite an achievement.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone mentioned the crew 'reporting vibration' on that engine. . .Just to be a devils advocate, I wonder just how long that vibration was there before the bearing failed? Just asking.. .One other thing although the aircraft was the first 738 in Ryanair. I believe the engine is new, the latest dash number even. Could this problem be specific to that particular engine mark? Are there problems ahead for CFM? Or just a one off? . .Idle speculation really!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H&H, Thank you for your clarification. I think we may have been saying the same thing, but with different interpretation!
Working in "risk prevention" I have often specified the use of VESDA devices in computer installations, so that a fire may be contained within a "stack" of equipment, rather than being allowed to "break out" and only be detected at room level.
Working in "risk prevention" I have often specified the use of VESDA devices in computer installations, so that a fire may be contained within a "stack" of equipment, rather than being allowed to "break out" and only be detected at room level.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An industry team has been studying the role of PSM + ICR (Propulsion System Makfunction + Inappropriate Crew Respones) items for a few years now. One of the biggies was reaction to suspected fire. Either during takeoff, in the air or on the ground. The report is available through the FAA web site.
Regarding my undrestanding so far of this latest incident. If the tower was the only source of the initial report of fire or smoke, the latest recomendations would have been for the pilot to monitor instruments for evidence of fire in the nacelle and act accordingly (retard-shut down if necessary and lastly pull the fire handle). If no evdience of fire in the nacelle, then the pilot should monitor his engine instruments (and act accordingly). If still no evidence, than I believe that the recomendation is that the pilot should consider the possibility of a tailpipe fire which would call for him to shut off the fuel upon landing and motor the engine on the starter.
The idea was to reduce the possibility of inappropriate evacuations and passenger injuries where there was no fire threat to the aircraft (tailpipe fire).
Unfotunately things can be driven beyond the crews control if passengers start deplaning while engines are still running and you have to avoid using the starter in case a passenger gets in front of one of the engines.
Regarding my undrestanding so far of this latest incident. If the tower was the only source of the initial report of fire or smoke, the latest recomendations would have been for the pilot to monitor instruments for evidence of fire in the nacelle and act accordingly (retard-shut down if necessary and lastly pull the fire handle). If no evdience of fire in the nacelle, then the pilot should monitor his engine instruments (and act accordingly). If still no evidence, than I believe that the recomendation is that the pilot should consider the possibility of a tailpipe fire which would call for him to shut off the fuel upon landing and motor the engine on the starter.
The idea was to reduce the possibility of inappropriate evacuations and passenger injuries where there was no fire threat to the aircraft (tailpipe fire).
Unfotunately things can be driven beyond the crews control if passengers start deplaning while engines are still running and you have to avoid using the starter in case a passenger gets in front of one of the engines.