what would you do different
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mostly hotels
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what would you do different
this is regarding the swiss md 11 . i think the flight no was 111.
my question is what would you have done differently.keep in mind that we have the benefit of hind sight
my question is what would you have done differently.keep in mind that we have the benefit of hind sight
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Will'fly'380,
I think the question goes much more basic than that.
I know its an old story, but it certainly remains true.
If that had been a DC10, I know from past experience the Flight Engineer would have literally torn out the overhead soundproofing material with whatever he had at hand, and used every portable fire extinguisher on the aircraft on it.
Also, he would'nt have waited for the smoke to get serious to start a serious investigation of the area in question.
Would have been insisting the aicraft be put on the ground 'now' regardless of practically anything else, selected all three generators off, and confirmed standby power automatically came on. And whilst the Captain was heading for 'the nearest', he would have been reminding the FO of what was needed on arrival (in the way of emerg. equipment) for his radio 'mayday' call.
Since I have been in a situation similar to that, I do know what a good FE will do!
And that, gentlemen, is use practical and common sense!!
As I've been saying for some time now, 2 man flight decks are great when everything is going OK, but if it's not, there are not enough hands or experienced people available, as shown many times in the recent past.
Cheers
I think the question goes much more basic than that.
I know its an old story, but it certainly remains true.
If that had been a DC10, I know from past experience the Flight Engineer would have literally torn out the overhead soundproofing material with whatever he had at hand, and used every portable fire extinguisher on the aircraft on it.
Also, he would'nt have waited for the smoke to get serious to start a serious investigation of the area in question.
Would have been insisting the aicraft be put on the ground 'now' regardless of practically anything else, selected all three generators off, and confirmed standby power automatically came on. And whilst the Captain was heading for 'the nearest', he would have been reminding the FO of what was needed on arrival (in the way of emerg. equipment) for his radio 'mayday' call.
Since I have been in a situation similar to that, I do know what a good FE will do!
And that, gentlemen, is use practical and common sense!!
As I've been saying for some time now, 2 man flight decks are great when everything is going OK, but if it's not, there are not enough hands or experienced people available, as shown many times in the recent past.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have kapton wiring (as many, many aircraft do), don't, ever, ever reset a CB unless:-
- It is a vital aircraft service AND
- you need it operating NOW in order to land safely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mostly hotels
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks guys. you know the reason i am asking about it again is because in my airline we have had a few warnings regarding smoke. one set of crew focused on getting the plane down and in the bargain they did not complete the smoke/fire checklist etc. the local authorities are jumping on their you know what.i guess some people never learn.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: prime meridian
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear willfly,
doing a better job would depend on making a chain of 'correct' decisions, it's debatable if any one pilot among us would have made all the correct ones.
land asap is obviously best. post swissair the industry has looked deep into the matter and the current smoke related checklists are a result of this effort and they all try to acheive the same thing (transgressing aircraft types and manufacturers).
it's worth noting the following points, which have been learned via this tragedy (let's use that 20/20 hindsight henceforth):
1. smoke situations are such that there IS no correct method.
2. the checklists now try and address this best they can so it's a good idea to be intimate with what these checklists are trying to do.
3. first they call for protection (O2,goggles).
4. priority is to land asap.
5. we are now confronted with c/l for 'smoke' and if the situation is deteriorating - 'smoke removal'
6. if smoke removal is a priority, the worst case aims at acheiving four things - (i)get to the lowest safe alt/10000, (ii)depressurize the airplane, (iii)reduce to the appropriate speed, (iv)open doors/windows/vents
7. acheiving the above from cruise neccessarily requires a time period probably in excess of 4 minutes.
8. the 'smoke' c/l can be tackled in the interim if conditions permit and at the earliest opportunity otherwise, this tries to isolate the source, typically by removing elec power from busses or pulling cb's or shutting packs and could mean a serious loss of equipment - something to keep in mind in a smoke filled cockpit while carrying out an emergency descent.
all very calmly and simplistically put - sitting at my pc - and a lot of it very obvious once you deconstruct it.
we can't get away from the fact of 2 crew cockpits, prep is probably the best we can do.
doing a better job would depend on making a chain of 'correct' decisions, it's debatable if any one pilot among us would have made all the correct ones.
land asap is obviously best. post swissair the industry has looked deep into the matter and the current smoke related checklists are a result of this effort and they all try to acheive the same thing (transgressing aircraft types and manufacturers).
it's worth noting the following points, which have been learned via this tragedy (let's use that 20/20 hindsight henceforth):
1. smoke situations are such that there IS no correct method.
2. the checklists now try and address this best they can so it's a good idea to be intimate with what these checklists are trying to do.
3. first they call for protection (O2,goggles).
4. priority is to land asap.
5. we are now confronted with c/l for 'smoke' and if the situation is deteriorating - 'smoke removal'
6. if smoke removal is a priority, the worst case aims at acheiving four things - (i)get to the lowest safe alt/10000, (ii)depressurize the airplane, (iii)reduce to the appropriate speed, (iv)open doors/windows/vents
7. acheiving the above from cruise neccessarily requires a time period probably in excess of 4 minutes.
8. the 'smoke' c/l can be tackled in the interim if conditions permit and at the earliest opportunity otherwise, this tries to isolate the source, typically by removing elec power from busses or pulling cb's or shutting packs and could mean a serious loss of equipment - something to keep in mind in a smoke filled cockpit while carrying out an emergency descent.
all very calmly and simplistically put - sitting at my pc - and a lot of it very obvious once you deconstruct it.
we can't get away from the fact of 2 crew cockpits, prep is probably the best we can do.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: vancouver oldebloke
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With FIRE/SMOKE(airbus doesn't always believe there is fire with smoke according to their drills)I believe that DELTA has the best philosophy-Put on your mask, power off,land at nearest,discuss it at your leisure while the fireman see to it...Over the ogin one might be a little thoughtful re ditching.....
