Delta Airline engine fire
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ai...tlanta-n867296

A new trend, no evaquation with smoke/fire?

No hurry Down South in ATL, it's only a fire ;), from the article linked above:

But seriously, an evac with fire trucks running around can have its own threats as with OZ214.

The most important question on PPRuNe will be whether the Deltoid crew used proper R/T procedures while on fire.

Captain's decision..no one injured..right call.

When in trouble,
When in doubt,
Drop the slides, scream and shout.

Or, let ARFF do their job as you sit in the comfy chair and get paid for another hour while you monitor the situation.

ImbracableCrunk

Wrong, but Ill leave it to others to explain why.

The video doesn't show the correct A/C but the audio clearly explains why they didn't evacuate.Well handled by all.

Bit of jibber about frequencies for fire vehicle/aircraft comms. We have a nation-wide freq to talk to the Fire Commander on, 131.0, published in AIP.

And in both of my RTO events that ended up as a cluster f*ck, so having a dedicated frequency is only a perceived benefit.

Had a couple myself, nothing that could be consider a CF, but a universal, known frequency asssigned by ATC at an appropriate time would have aided the communication.

While not entirely similar, the Singapore Airlines on ground fire also had a happy outcome with no fatalities. Yet, it triggered a masssive critisism of the flight crew for not evaquation the aircraft.
This seem to be an engine fire that did not go out. Any information about the cause of the fire? Still early, but this is intersting. It indicated issues on the outside of the engine. Or possibly the crew did not activate the fire switches?

OH EM GEE!!!! the controller said "roll the trucks" !!! He obviously wasn't aware that would be the cause of untold pages and pages of angst from the AR TEE enthusiasts.

Not really comparable events. On Singapore, a large portion of the wing was ablaze - that could have gone south very rapidly. On this Delta event, the engine was basically smoking - there was little if any visible flame.

Anybody see and visible flame in the pics? if so where from? tailpipe or other?

I'm a little concerned about the visible smoke unless it's only from an an extinguished fire

If you are referring to the above posted video, they were filming landings on the wrong runway. The aircraft in question was not on that video.

Well in the top picture in the first article linked, it sure looks like there's a flame toward the rear of the engine.

Edit: here's the pic I was referring to.

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newsc...l-1000x500.jpg

One of the videos showed the arrival of the fire trucks and these flames became much more extensive as the first truck began to spray the rear of the engine. It was as if flammable fluid was pooled there and the disturbance allowed more to catch fire.
The flames were knocked back when the second pumper arrived, it seemed a much more powerful unit.

So, what was burning?
I don’t fly Airbus, but I assume the fire drill will shut down the engine by shutting off the fuel, same as all other commercial aircraft I have flown.

Just looking at the pic, there is flame from the engine, but the smoke looks like it comes from the wing, not the engine.

Edmund

The fire was entirely in the engine. CFR equipment in ATL and most larger airports has the ability to see all hotspots and know exactly where a fire is originating from. (Thermal imaging) It’s a especially useful bit of gear if you are landing with a cargo fire indication. They can quickly tell you if it is real or false.
You always as a widebody CA have to consider that if you put passengers into the slides there will be injured passengers and there is a possibility a passenger or two could be killed.
Delta had a relatively orderly evacuation of a 330 in Lagos after a incorrect report from CFR at the airport that resulted in serious injuries to several passengers.

May need to discharge the fire suppressant as well.

That would have been SOP at my airline.

It’s SOP at every airline. Both bottles were fired. In addition the bottles are a monitored item in the ECAM.

It's been a long time, but as I recall with an engine fire in flight we would discharge one bottle, then wait for a specified time to see whether the fire warning would go out. If not, then discharge the second bottle. (That would be a bummer out around the ETP between the west coast and Hawaii).

I don't recall about on the ground, but it makes sense to discharge both bottles.

As an aside, I find flying a high-performance Part 23 twin in the flight levels without a fire suppression system not a great place to be.

You can clearly see fire in the engine area as as the aircraft touched down. I think a big part of the PIC's decision not to evacuate rested on the fact that fire services were already standing by when the aircraft landed. 2 minutes is a long time to wait for fire trucks to respond when your engine catches fire on the ground.

But in this case, the fire trucks were already there when the aircraft landed, and provided the crew with excellent information. I think the PIC made the right call. Professionalism through and through.

Not possible to make comparisons to the 77 fire in Singapore and this incident. Comparing oranges to clementines ...

Good decision made in this case, but my generally feeling is any fire - get the pax off. It was contained quiet quickly.

Having said that , in reference to Singapore the fire crew stated over the headset to the cockpit, "they will have the fire under control shortly" I am not entirely sure i would be content on hearing this comment , you have to ask yourself, what if the fire becomes out of control or a fire tender becomes unserviceable in the process.....Judgement !

Recalling our neighbour's mutterings about ETOPS in the 1990s, and assuming the Delta was operating ATL LHR in this manner, my wife wants to know if this smokey event counts as an engine failure under the convention covering ETOPS statistics...

ATCO butting in here (apologies to the jockeys), but the bit I’m interested in is whether they blew both bottles or not and if the fire continued if both were indeed blown.

Really? 🤓

Like Una, I would like to know if the fire continued after they fired the bottle(s), which also removes fuel to the engine.
If the fire was contained inside the engine, the fire drill should have stopped it.
I don’t believe they landed without trying to put the fire out. So, what was burning?

Hydraulic fluid, engine oil, composite parts ect.. lots of reasons a fire will not go out. Fire bottles are 1 shot devices that do nothing to prevent reignition. Here is a example of a fire burning long after the bottles were fired and the firefighting crew attempting to extinguish the fire.

Agree ... but re-ignition with available fuel source better pretty damn rare in the air, or it's emergency AD time