A 320, what would be your course of action?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SDCU also feeds the FWC which in turns triggers the ECAM. Without the ECAM warning or seeing that the isolation valves had closed it would not be unreasonable to consider it just being a spurious light.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nnc0
The SDCU also feeds the FWC which in turns triggers the ECAM. Without the ECAM warning or seeing that the isolation valves had closed it would not be unreasonable to consider it just being a spurious light.
@tallsandwich
nnc0 gave you the answer.
Regards
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hetfield, nnc0 tells me that you were not being unreasonable (that was never in question!).
Would you not consider that the links between these components could themselves have been compromised by the event and hence the ECAM warning may never get triggered such that you would only ever get the one alert – do you consider this eventuality to be such a low probability?
I guess if we searched through a few crash reports where fire was a factor we would see that the feedback available to the crew would be seen to be incomplete or misguiding in some cases. I assume with the workload you did not either did not have time to consider such a scenario or you reject it for other reasons?
I think you never mentioned what your own personal estimate on the time to land at the divert was (although others suggested it could have taken just as long as your chosen course of action). The divert was not perfect, but it was viable nevertheless? I assume you considered it to take just as long as to press-on?
Not a witch hunt, just interested as to your reasoning given the constraints placed upon you.
Cheers.
Would you not consider that the links between these components could themselves have been compromised by the event and hence the ECAM warning may never get triggered such that you would only ever get the one alert – do you consider this eventuality to be such a low probability?
I guess if we searched through a few crash reports where fire was a factor we would see that the feedback available to the crew would be seen to be incomplete or misguiding in some cases. I assume with the workload you did not either did not have time to consider such a scenario or you reject it for other reasons?
I think you never mentioned what your own personal estimate on the time to land at the divert was (although others suggested it could have taken just as long as your chosen course of action). The divert was not perfect, but it was viable nevertheless? I assume you considered it to take just as long as to press-on?
Not a witch hunt, just interested as to your reasoning given the constraints placed upon you.
Cheers.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cwatters..... glad to hear you are a glider pilot,me too,only I have 2 engines on my one...
Concerning the fire lights,the second post is right on and is the common sense app....
I have had several occassions where I have had to do an airstart (do gliders need these?)....the rear cargo door has been open as the boys are still loading bags....the airstart cart has been fired up and the smoke from this thing has "waffled" into the cargo hold,....note: on the aircraft we have,the cargo detection system is for smoke only not fire /heat
In the front office we get the cargo smoke lights.....we immediatly panic,start screaming and looking for the big red button.....disgharge the bottles,do the checklists,evacuate the aircraft,and then immediatly go to the Chief Pilots office and explain why we were such idiots!!!!
Bottom line...all situations need to be evaluated,use all your resources,and that includes those in the back.....
On the ground the decision is somewhat easier,in the air,obviously different,....under those conditons my QRH requires under to blow the bottles,even if you have doubts......better to have blown the bottles on a "suspected" smoke/fire as opposed to finding out you actually have one
Concerning the fire lights,the second post is right on and is the common sense app....
I have had several occassions where I have had to do an airstart (do gliders need these?)....the rear cargo door has been open as the boys are still loading bags....the airstart cart has been fired up and the smoke from this thing has "waffled" into the cargo hold,....note: on the aircraft we have,the cargo detection system is for smoke only not fire /heat
In the front office we get the cargo smoke lights.....we immediatly panic,start screaming and looking for the big red button.....disgharge the bottles,do the checklists,evacuate the aircraft,and then immediatly go to the Chief Pilots office and explain why we were such idiots!!!!
Bottom line...all situations need to be evaluated,use all your resources,and that includes those in the back.....
On the ground the decision is somewhat easier,in the air,obviously different,....under those conditons my QRH requires under to blow the bottles,even if you have doubts......better to have blown the bottles on a "suspected" smoke/fire as opposed to finding out you actually have one
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the front office we get the cargo smoke lights.....we immediatly panic,start screaming and looking for the big red button.....disgharge the bottles,do the checklists,evacuate the aircraft,and then immediatly go to the Chief Pilots office and explain why we were such idiots!!!!
Just curious.
GD&L
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
come on mate!!! your not serious are you......my point was that on several occassions other 
pilots had discharged the bottles (on the ground) thinking that they had an actual cargo fire,until it was realised later on that it was smoke from the airstart carts causing the problem....a memo was put out stating that if this should occur again that this was the most likely reason for the indications(on the ground) and to maybe to some more checking as opposed to reacting like a wild-man.......these things seem to go in spurts,it seems these smoke detectors are very sensitive,and because they were a new addition to the fleet,we did not have a lot of experience with them......
by the way,my visits to the CP,s office are for real things,like sexual herarsement and stuff like that....PB
pilots had discharged the bottles (on the ground) thinking that they had an actual cargo fire,until it was realised later on that it was smoke from the airstart carts causing the problem....a memo was put out stating that if this should occur again that this was the most likely reason for the indications(on the ground) and to maybe to some more checking as opposed to reacting like a wild-man.......these things seem to go in spurts,it seems these smoke detectors are very sensitive,and because they were a new addition to the fleet,we did not have a lot of experience with them......by the way,my visits to the CP,s office are for real things,like sexual herarsement and stuff like that....PB
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Just a question as an ignorant Boeing pilot (although..might be a 320 driver in a bit going by last nights rumor told at FL380) whats the indication after you blow the bottles in the hold? does the smoke light extinguish? or does it remain illuminated as the Halon (extinguishing agent etc) perculates around the cargo bay...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H1 maaaaaaaaaaaaate......from what Ive heard..(heheheheh), the discharge lights will stay on for sure(amber) and the "red" smoke light should go away if the smoke/fire is stopped(if not land at the most suitable airport)...just like the engine 1/2 fire lights.and APU...(if you go to the bus) let me know,I have some great CD,S you can have,tech stuff...PB
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Cheers PB...I'll let you know if Im frogmarched onto Le bus.....I dunno If I wanna give up the mighty Boeing...having said that the 320/321/330 would be good to have on the ATPL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@tallsandwich
To put it short.
Your decision would be the immediate divertion to next suitable airport, right?
Just by a questionable red light, without any other clues, right?
Assuming that you have a fire AND and at same time an ECAM failure, right?
Regards
To put it short.
Your decision would be the immediate divertion to next suitable airport, right?
Just by a questionable red light, without any other clues, right?
Assuming that you have a fire AND and at same time an ECAM failure, right?
Regards
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It took me awhile to find it but this thread reminded me of the Swissair fire. I know quite different but they couldn't see flames or feel heat either....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_flight_111
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_flight_111
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cwatters
It took me awhile to find it but this thread reminded me of the Swissair fire. I know quite different but they couldn't see flames or feel heat either....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_flight_111
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_flight_111
The flight departed JFK at 8:18 PM (EDT) with 215 passengers and 14 crew en route to Geneva. At about 9:10 PM, cruising at 33,000 feet (about 10,060 m), the flight crew smelled smoke in the cockpit. Fifteen minutes later, the smoke was visible and a number of systems were failing.
That's a liitle different to a single obviously faulty red light, isn't it?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield...mate......he,s got me buggered also,read the article the same way as you,and also the case studY we recieved in GS....I think the boy has "fallen off his bike"/....Its very apparent the crew were well aware of "a problem"....ditto on a faulty light...PB
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield,
You started this thread asking what you thought others would do, if your intention was only to find people that agree with you then you made some success. You do not appear to want to go into any discussion that would lead in the in ther direction.
To answer your question, might I expect the malfunction of more than one system and compoent at one time, the answer is yes. How probable that event might be will only be known in the future.
You seem to be stuck in the middle of a decision, on the one hand you pressed on with your flight, and on the other hand you took actions as if there was a fire. If you took those actions then it seems you thought the event might be real - in which case, why do you now act as if you never believed there was a fire (see your emotional last post).
Either you act 100% on such an event, or you (indirectly) are choosing to ignore it. Had your time estimate to land at the divert been just as long as your 'press-on' time to land, then you have no case to answer, you got the plane on the ground as quick as you safely could.
Why are you reluctant to answer the question as to how long you estimate it would have taken to land at the divert? Why are you upset? Did you not expect to get any seraching questions when you made the post?
You started this thread asking what you thought others would do, if your intention was only to find people that agree with you then you made some success. You do not appear to want to go into any discussion that would lead in the in ther direction.
To answer your question, might I expect the malfunction of more than one system and compoent at one time, the answer is yes. How probable that event might be will only be known in the future.
You seem to be stuck in the middle of a decision, on the one hand you pressed on with your flight, and on the other hand you took actions as if there was a fire. If you took those actions then it seems you thought the event might be real - in which case, why do you now act as if you never believed there was a fire (see your emotional last post).
Either you act 100% on such an event, or you (indirectly) are choosing to ignore it. Had your time estimate to land at the divert been just as long as your 'press-on' time to land, then you have no case to answer, you got the plane on the ground as quick as you safely could.
Why are you reluctant to answer the question as to how long you estimate it would have taken to land at the divert? Why are you upset? Did you not expect to get any seraching questions when you made the post?
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...becuase I asked my question first 
What was your time estimate to land at the (assumed viable) divert?
What was your time estimate to land at the (assumed viable) divert?
Last edited by tallsandwich; 19th May 2006 at 13:01.
