Longest flight by burning plane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longest flight by burning plane
What is the longest time any aircraft has flown while on fire?
There are several notorious disasters from planes that caught fire. Swissair MD-11, which crashed in 25 minutes or so. Saudia Tristar. Manchester B-737 which burnt on runway. Some B747 crashing in Indian Ocean... All of those were doomed in a few minutes.
Is it the general rule that any plane that catches fire crashes in less than half an hour, unless it happens to be near an airport and land in less than half an hour?
And does it follow that any aircraft farther than 30 minutes from a diversion that catches fire has no chance at all?
There are several notorious disasters from planes that caught fire. Swissair MD-11, which crashed in 25 minutes or so. Saudia Tristar. Manchester B-737 which burnt on runway. Some B747 crashing in Indian Ocean... All of those were doomed in a few minutes.
Is it the general rule that any plane that catches fire crashes in less than half an hour, unless it happens to be near an airport and land in less than half an hour?
And does it follow that any aircraft farther than 30 minutes from a diversion that catches fire has no chance at all?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unclear from your post if you know this or not but large aircraft (almost all turbine powered) have fire extinguishers for each engine and other areas. Most planes that catch fire just shut the engine down, use the extinguisher then land it is not that big a disaster if dealt with promptly and correctly. I am sure many many aircraft have had fires mid Atlantic/Pacific and landed fine even though they are multiple hours from an airfield. If the fire is severe enough to burn regardles of the extinguisher and airspeed then yes you will probably have a much bigger problem that will result in a crash if you cannot land very soon.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: LGW
Age: 51
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scoob I think chornedsnorkack means a fire inside the aircraft. The Swissair MD-11 fire was in the insulation between the outer airframe and the inner skin of the aircraft, resulting in smoke and flames inside the cockpit.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chornedsnorkack - you will need to refine your definition of 'fire' - since ETOPS allows up to 180 mins from a diversion and possibly more, so 30 minutes would be a bit of a problem.
If it is a question on fire suppression/resistance you will do better on 'Tech Log' and I am putting you over there. You may wish to refine your query there? If it is just a 'spotter's' question, no doubt we will see you back here.
Re the BA 737 at Manchester - it did not 'fly'.
Moved from Spectators' Balcony
If it is a question on fire suppression/resistance you will do better on 'Tech Log' and I am putting you over there. You may wish to refine your query there? If it is just a 'spotter's' question, no doubt we will see you back here.
Re the BA 737 at Manchester - it did not 'fly'.
Moved from Spectators' Balcony
Last edited by BOAC; 21st Jan 2006 at 17:01.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the Ansett ANA Viscount disaster at Winton (Australia) back in the sixties proved for once and for all that, if you have an uncontrollable fire, the planned landing point is just under your nose. The poor sods were trying for an airport (Winton) only 15 minutes away, and didn't get half the distance.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Regards,
Old Smokey
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BOAC et al,
Yep 180 min. IS a problem - but then again, there was an FAA study some years back that suggested that:
1) If a fire broke out inside the aircraft, you had - on average - 2 min. to put it out, or it would become uncontrollable and...
2) if a fire became uncontrollable, you had on average 14 additional minutes before chances were that nobody would walk away from it.
So - 16 minutes give or take. The difference ETOPS/non-ETOPS suddenly seems academic
It translates to - racing towards nearest land while getting into a position from where you can transit to a ditching in just a few minutes, when the situation becomes untenable & the citadel is about to fall 
Or -any other good suggestions out there???
Cheers,
Empty
Yep 180 min. IS a problem - but then again, there was an FAA study some years back that suggested that:
1) If a fire broke out inside the aircraft, you had - on average - 2 min. to put it out, or it would become uncontrollable and...
2) if a fire became uncontrollable, you had on average 14 additional minutes before chances were that nobody would walk away from it.
So - 16 minutes give or take. The difference ETOPS/non-ETOPS suddenly seems academic
It translates to - racing towards nearest land while getting into a position from where you can transit to a ditching in just a few minutes, when the situation becomes untenable & the citadel is about to fall Or -any other good suggestions out there???Cheers,
Empty
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the middle of nowhere
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Empty Cruise
1) If a fire broke out inside the aircraft, you had - on average - 2 min. to put it out, or it would become uncontrollable and...
2) if a fire became uncontrollable, you had on average 14 additional minutes before chances were that nobody would walk away from it.
2) if a fire became uncontrollable, you had on average 14 additional minutes before chances were that nobody would walk away from it.
As there is no mechanical control backup the plane has crashed in 2nm from runway threshold.
So the 16 minutes is the only approx value.
Have fire on board - LAND ASAP.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old Smokey
I think that the Ansett ANA Viscount disaster at Winton (Australia) back in the sixties proved for once and for all that, if you have an uncontrollable fire, the planned landing point is just under your nose. The poor sods were trying for an airport (Winton) only 15 minutes away, and didn't get half the distance.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Regards,
Old Smokey
And this Air Canada DC-9 made it down in one piece in 17 minutes, but only half the occupants were able to evac.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the infamous Saudia Tristar at Riyadh in 1980 came down in one piece after - what - 15-20 minutes..... The cock-up on the ground preventing anyone getting out was of course a different matter.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to keep the record straight, the Ansett ANA Viscount disaster was not a cabin fire, but an engine fire originating in an incorrectly lubricated Rootes blower. The resultant fire was uncontrollable, leading to (wing) structural failure in flight.
Not a correction to any of the historic facts, but I suspected that some readers may have thought of it as a cabin fire.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Not a correction to any of the historic facts, but I suspected that some readers may have thought of it as a cabin fire.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fires
So, as far as I can gather - some engine fires crash the aircraft in a few minutes, whether by structural failure of the wing (Ansett Viscount), or draining multiple redundant hydraulic systems (Tu-154) or by eating into the fuselage (Manchester B737, on ground). In which case it does not help if the airplane stays within 90 minutes or even 60 minutes of a diversion, or, as shown in Manchester, stays on ground...
And there have been other engine fires which are extinguished quickly and completely... in which case it does not much matter why the engine failed, and the plane can fly on for 60 or 180 minutes or as long as the fuel lasts.
In this light, ETOPS/non-ETOPS distiction seems academic. Are there any flights which were able to make a safe landing directly because of the ETOPS fire resistance/suppression capabilities?
And there have been other engine fires which are extinguished quickly and completely... in which case it does not much matter why the engine failed, and the plane can fly on for 60 or 180 minutes or as long as the fuel lasts.
In this light, ETOPS/non-ETOPS distiction seems academic. Are there any flights which were able to make a safe landing directly because of the ETOPS fire resistance/suppression capabilities?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS aircraft have as standard equipment which is supposed to be more reliable than non ETOPS a/c. However the fire suppression/containment capability of an ETOPS a/c relates to cargo areas only (in fact ALL long range a/c need to have containment/suppression which relates to alternate/diversion times more an EROPS than an ETOPS requirement). The logic here being that if the fire is in the cabin/flightdeck then crew can attempt to extinguish it. Cargo areas however being inaccessible require automatic or semi-automatic systems.
In the case of a/c certified for 180 ETOPS then the cargo containment will be 180+15. For an a/c like a 767 this requires 3 bottles of extinguishant. The first is fired by the crew should they get a cargo fire warning. The other 2 are fired automatically after a set time delay such that the cargo environment would be unable to support a fire for the pre-requesit time. In the event that the a/c lands well within the 180 timeframe then all the remaining bottles are discharged on touchdown.
As far as I am aware (though I MAY be corrected) the engine fire extinguishing capability of ETOPS and non ETOPS a/c are the same.
In the case of a/c certified for 180 ETOPS then the cargo containment will be 180+15. For an a/c like a 767 this requires 3 bottles of extinguishant. The first is fired by the crew should they get a cargo fire warning. The other 2 are fired automatically after a set time delay such that the cargo environment would be unable to support a fire for the pre-requesit time. In the event that the a/c lands well within the 180 timeframe then all the remaining bottles are discharged on touchdown.
As far as I am aware (though I MAY be corrected) the engine fire extinguishing capability of ETOPS and non ETOPS a/c are the same.
This thread touches upon the most dangerous aspect of long range operations.Engine fires are relatively easily extinguished, cargo smoke/fire is contained by sophisticated suppression systems.The significant danger is fire or smoke in the cabin.No aircraft, flying short or long-haul, ETOPS or not, 2 or 16 engines, is immune from the dangers that cabin fire or smoke present. On a shorthaul network, the aircraft can be landed ( generally) within 30 minutes, though even this may not be sufficient time. On longhaul sectors this option is not available and the consequences could be catastrophic.
The Swissair incident demonstrated how lethal and incapacitating fire and smoke could be, if contained within the cabin, a survival time circa 20 minutes. In the 70's, there was a DC8 departure out of Jeddah which had a gear fire on takeoff ( due to a tyre failure) which was retracted into the fuselage.The surrounding structure then caught fire and even though the gear was extended again, the airblast from the slipsteam caused the aluminium structure to burn. The aircraft crashed about 2nm from touchdown only 5 minutes later, as the wing structure folded.
Experience shows that you have about 20 minutes survival if you can contain the fire/smoke within the cabin. If the fire gets through the structure and is fed by the outside airflow, you have only minutes. Even 16 engines will not save you.
My standard brief to my co-pilots,when we are in the middle of nowhere and I am off the flight deck, is: In the event of cabin fire/smoke 1.do the drill.2get descent to MSA 3.Call me. If the fire/smoke hazard clears, we can climb back up and look at the options. If it turns out to be uncontainable, at least we can force-land or ditch under control within 10 minutes, rather than crash and burn.
The Swissair incident demonstrated how lethal and incapacitating fire and smoke could be, if contained within the cabin, a survival time circa 20 minutes. In the 70's, there was a DC8 departure out of Jeddah which had a gear fire on takeoff ( due to a tyre failure) which was retracted into the fuselage.The surrounding structure then caught fire and even though the gear was extended again, the airblast from the slipsteam caused the aluminium structure to burn. The aircraft crashed about 2nm from touchdown only 5 minutes later, as the wing structure folded.
Experience shows that you have about 20 minutes survival if you can contain the fire/smoke within the cabin. If the fire gets through the structure and is fed by the outside airflow, you have only minutes. Even 16 engines will not save you.
My standard brief to my co-pilots,when we are in the middle of nowhere and I am off the flight deck, is: In the event of cabin fire/smoke 1.do the drill.2get descent to MSA 3.Call me. If the fire/smoke hazard clears, we can climb back up and look at the options. If it turns out to be uncontainable, at least we can force-land or ditch under control within 10 minutes, rather than crash and burn.
An RAF Nimrod was doing a test flight not far from Kinloss in 1995. One of the engines caught fire and despite only being minutes from Kinloss, the pilot decided to ditch. The crew survived.
We work on the same FAA theory. In an unconstrained cabin fire you have about 14 minutes to get the aircraft on the ground or water. Unfortunately the metal fuselage melts at a lower temperature than the cabin burns at!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread! Cabin Smoke/Fire=LAND ASAP!
Many of the 'engine fire' scenarios recounted here though, are about a/c with wing mounted engines not podded engines. Has anyone got any stats on the outcome (good or bad) on pod mounted engine fires? My suspicion is that the outcomes are nowhere near as bad, but can find no data to support this.
Many of the 'engine fire' scenarios recounted here though, are about a/c with wing mounted engines not podded engines. Has anyone got any stats on the outcome (good or bad) on pod mounted engine fires? My suspicion is that the outcomes are nowhere near as bad, but can find no data to support this.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by idg
I fully agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread! Cabin Smoke/Fire=LAND ASAP!
Many of the 'engine fire' scenarios recounted here though, are about a/c with wing mounted engines not podded engines. Has anyone got any stats on the outcome (good or bad) on pod mounted engine fires? My suspicion is that the outcomes are nowhere near as bad, but can find no data to support this.
Many of the 'engine fire' scenarios recounted here though, are about a/c with wing mounted engines not podded engines. Has anyone got any stats on the outcome (good or bad) on pod mounted engine fires? My suspicion is that the outcomes are nowhere near as bad, but can find no data to support this.
