Uncontrolled engine fire
 

Hi, There are two ways to deal with an uncontrolled engine fire.
1 - Gear down, Flaps and land asap : 3 to 4 mins
2 - Perform a standard pattern : 8 to 10 mins

I was wondering, how long can you expect to stay alive with an uncontrolled engine fire ? I can not find written somewhere which way is the best.
Thanks for you answer.

On the E195 the engines are certified to burn for 15 minutes. I don't know if that means uncontained fire or just a "bog standard" fire or if there's a difference.

Nevertheless I'd be landing ASAP, even consider a turn back to the reciprocal runway rather than the full circuit.

Thanks for your answers. I agree.
Now I will try to find proofs.

:ok:

.. but keep in mind that management of such an emergency is a balance between competing risks. There is not much point implementing a low level quick return (which is good from the fire consideration) if, in so doing, you end up with a CFIT .. you are just as dead as if the wing burnt off.

It follows that the optimum risk solution will vary according to circumstances .. which will include experience and skill levels, location, etc.

If you can find it look at the report on the Dan Air(?) HS748(?) out of Stansted.

This Report may be the one you are thinking of (?) .. but is of an accident which might not have been quite so successful had the crew attempted a leisurely trip around the circuit instead of putting the aircraft back onto the runway ....

What if that uncontrollable fire occurs half way across the Pacific is it better to do a controlled ditching whilst the aircraft is still flyable, or hope that the fire will blow itself out before the wing is burned through ????

The engines on a B-747 are designed to separate at the pylon mounts and rotate over the wing under certain circumstances - but uncontrollable fire was never mentioned as one of them.

I know what actions I would have taken under the those circumstances - fortunately I never had to make that decision.

What would you do? :hmm:

Pod engines vs the internal (deH Comet)
 

The threat posed by an engine fire differs from the severe threat of a cabin fire.

Forced landing
 

"... uncontrollable fire ... is it better to do a controlled ditching ...?"

There is a news service photo of an airliner on ground after a forced landing, the caption cities several famous movie stars aboard, in the crowd around the airliner:

PAA / 18Jun46 Lockheed Constellation NC????? [Can't read ##'s in Acme photo shown on pg 1 of _Air Line Pilot_ , June '48]. Near tragic in flight fire that imperiled 51 passengers and crew .... Force landed near Willimantic, Conn, to avert disaster -- one of its four engines caught fire and fell from the plane due to its supporting structure weakened and eaten away by heat . . . . Flaming outboard engine had fallen from starboard side, leaving a gaping hole in the wing.

In April of 1968 a BOAC B707 suffered an engine fire just after T/Off. Due to a combination of errors by the operating crew this led to an uncontrollable fire. During the turn back to Heathrow the number two engine pylon weakened by the fire failed and the engine fell from the aircraft. Despite the loss of the engine the fire continued to burn fiercely and shortly after touchdown there was a massive explosion which seperated the port wing. Subsequent fire destroyed the aircraft.

We are all familiar with the three elements equired for fire to exist Fuel/Oxygen/Ignition. In an uncontrollable fire we have to assume that the correct procedures have already been carried out, fire handles pulled and both fire extinguishers discharged - but the fire still exists

In an uncontrolled fire Oxygen & Ignition are self evident with the most likely source of fuel being a ruptured fuel line or S.O.V. which has failed to close. (As was the case on the B-707 above). It is the torching effect of this burning fuel which can lead to further damage to the wing and a possible loss of the aircraft.

Something to think about..........:hmm:

Incident of Nimrod that had uncontained engine fire - although note that engines in Nimrod are mounted in wing roots.

From www.targetlock.org
Plenty of photos available on the net

You're not going to find anything written about how long you've got...because any number of possible circumstances might have occurred which caused the fire. How long depends on the cause and the reason you can't contain it. How long the fire burns is really quite irrelevant, because you're going to take what action you can. If you don't make it, you don't make it, and if you do make it, then the time is irrelevant.

A friend of mine died a year ago in an uncontained fire when it broke out 300' in the air on takeoff. He burned all the way to the ground, a short distance away, in a P2V.

Several years ago as I approached an uncontrolled field at pattern altitude, I began to smell smoke. I executed an overhead break pattern as I passed over the runway and made immediately for the numbers. By the time I passed over the numbers landing, it was hard to see in the cockpit, and by the time I reached the first runway exit, it was difficult to see because of the smoke obscuring visibility and burning my eyes. My lungs felt like they were on fire, and I had little doubt I was on fire. It happened fairly quickly, and while fortunately I was literally approaching and over an airport, any earlier or any delay in addressing the problem, could have been costly.

Most of the time, and engine fire is not a big deal. Other times it's a very big deal. An emergency may very well be such that it's not survivable or recoverable. Your fate is sealed from the start. The loss of the Valuejet DC-9 in the swamp is a good example. They didn't sand a chance.

As for the second part of your question, you're asking which procedure is best...getting on the ground as soon as possible, or taking your time to fly a full pattern while burning to death. Is this really such a difficult choice?

In the "ole days" an accepted procedure was to accelerate - downwards if necessary - and try to blow the fire out....................it sometimes worked on piston engined aircraft of world war 2.
I can't imagine many fires staying alight at .95 mach - which most modern airliners could achieve without breaking up.

In my previous company it was always a source of debate - even up to 747 Classics - whether you accelerated to try and blow the fire out or crash-landed (or ditched) with a burning engine. You can't do both.........................dunno the answer, luckily !

Certainly useful in theory, but what if structural damage was a potential factor? I certainly wouldn't want to stress the airframe if the fire had been eating away at the wing box :eek: