B737 Area of Responsibility question re Fire Handle Actuation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737 Area of Responsibility question re Fire Handle Actuation.
The FCTM does not specify whose job is to actuate the fire switch handles during an engine fire on the ground - in fact the pertitent diagram on areas of responsibility indicates it is a combined responsibility between captain and first officer. How does one combine responsibility?
Similarly, with an evacuation it is not clear from either the FCOM or FCTM who is responsible to actuating the fire handles. I am aware there are operators who require the captain to be entirely responsible to closing the start levers, and actuating the fire switches in the case of engine fire on the ground and during an evacuation. Other operators apply their own interpretation of what they think Boeing mean and therefore have the first officer carry out every recall action except for the start levers. The captain has little do do apparently.
Request views on who is responsible for what and who pulls which switches when faced with an engine fire on the ground or an evacuation.
On an allied matter, I understand that Airbus specifies that in event of an engine fire on the ground, the 30 second timing between the firing (if necessary) of the second bottle, does not apply to a fire on the ground but only to an engine fire in the air. I understand the reason being that in the air the second bottle is only meant to be fired after the engine compressor rpm has wound down and thus allows the extinguishing agent to have a greater chance of being effective.
On the deck the engine is already had its fuel cut off and rpm is low so both bottles should be fired into the engine without a 30 second delay between first and second shot. Makes sense - but Boeing don't differentiate and leave it to the operator to guess if the 30 second split applies equally in the air on on the ground. Request views or authoritive text.
Similarly, with an evacuation it is not clear from either the FCOM or FCTM who is responsible to actuating the fire handles. I am aware there are operators who require the captain to be entirely responsible to closing the start levers, and actuating the fire switches in the case of engine fire on the ground and during an evacuation. Other operators apply their own interpretation of what they think Boeing mean and therefore have the first officer carry out every recall action except for the start levers. The captain has little do do apparently.
Request views on who is responsible for what and who pulls which switches when faced with an engine fire on the ground or an evacuation.
On an allied matter, I understand that Airbus specifies that in event of an engine fire on the ground, the 30 second timing between the firing (if necessary) of the second bottle, does not apply to a fire on the ground but only to an engine fire in the air. I understand the reason being that in the air the second bottle is only meant to be fired after the engine compressor rpm has wound down and thus allows the extinguishing agent to have a greater chance of being effective.
On the deck the engine is already had its fuel cut off and rpm is low so both bottles should be fired into the engine without a 30 second delay between first and second shot. Makes sense - but Boeing don't differentiate and leave it to the operator to guess if the 30 second split applies equally in the air on on the ground. Request views or authoritive text.
Fire bottles are fired arround engines not into them so I don't understand your linkage to RPM in your question.
The fire bell is linked to temperature differences and not directly to flame so there is a need to be patient to see the effects of firing the first bottle. It's not like seeing the flame with your eyes, you are relying on the time it takes for heat sensors to change in order to assess the effects of the first fire bottle.
The fire bell is linked to temperature differences and not directly to flame so there is a need to be patient to see the effects of firing the first bottle. It's not like seeing the flame with your eyes, you are relying on the time it takes for heat sensors to change in order to assess the effects of the first fire bottle.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference who does what...
I recall many years ago when I was in training on the L1011 that the company had the Captain doing all the vital (and some not so vital) actions, whereas the First Officer was ah....not doing much, except to call for the fire services in the case of a fire on ground.
When I asked the fleet manager why, his reply was...'we know the limitations of our more junior crew members so we hire experienced Captains who know the score.'
Could it be that Boeing has left the decision of who does what to the individual airline, considering that they might recognise that one size does not necessarily fit all...IE: skills levels differ depending on operating experience?
I recall many years ago when I was in training on the L1011 that the company had the Captain doing all the vital (and some not so vital) actions, whereas the First Officer was ah....not doing much, except to call for the fire services in the case of a fire on ground.
When I asked the fleet manager why, his reply was...'we know the limitations of our more junior crew members so we hire experienced Captains who know the score.'
Could it be that Boeing has left the decision of who does what to the individual airline, considering that they might recognise that one size does not necessarily fit all...IE: skills levels differ depending on operating experience?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a matter of checklist philosophy and procedures. At 'my old house' we went with a procedure that after the immediate items, the F/O took the airplane and was PF. The Captain then ran the checklist.
We then get to 'verify' and 'confirm'. It's been a while but IIRC 'verify' was after an action (verify altimeter 29.94) and 'confirm' was before an action was taken (confirm number 2 fire switch).
Our checklist procedures evolved over a period of time and came out of the kung fu drills that occurred over the throttle quadrant with emergency descents if the F/O was flying. The F/O was reaching for the speedbrake while the Capt was adjusting his glasses to try and figure out the pressurization panel. Solution? Capt assumes flying duties. Once we did that, we looked at who did what and when.
Since the Capt is the one making decisions, we gave him the checklist, told the F/O to put the airplane on autopilot and let the F/O program the autopilot. It works VERY well.
So, who pulls the switch? At our house it was the Capt but that was due to the checklist design.
We then get to 'verify' and 'confirm'. It's been a while but IIRC 'verify' was after an action (verify altimeter 29.94) and 'confirm' was before an action was taken (confirm number 2 fire switch).
Our checklist procedures evolved over a period of time and came out of the kung fu drills that occurred over the throttle quadrant with emergency descents if the F/O was flying. The F/O was reaching for the speedbrake while the Capt was adjusting his glasses to try and figure out the pressurization panel. Solution? Capt assumes flying duties. Once we did that, we looked at who did what and when.
Since the Capt is the one making decisions, we gave him the checklist, told the F/O to put the airplane on autopilot and let the F/O program the autopilot. It works VERY well.
So, who pulls the switch? At our house it was the Capt but that was due to the checklist design.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there,
Really depends on how your company QRH is structured.
In my company these cklists are split in PF-PNF actions and Cap-Fo actions.
Example: On the ground the Captain is always the PF (even if is the FO sector), so if during taxi out we have a fire bell the captain will stop the a/c and ask to state the malfunction-verify and call the FO-PNF for the appropriate QRH-recall actions.Then if we decide to evacuate the actions to be taken are split in Capt and Fo recall-actions and the captain is the one shutting down the engines and pulling the fire handle.
In flight a different story, the PF-PNF logic apply for cklists apart for the emergency descent one(in my company) where its clearly stated that the Captain assumes the PF role,this is valid for the RTO procudure as well.
Hope that helps!!
Really depends on how your company QRH is structured.
In my company these cklists are split in PF-PNF actions and Cap-Fo actions.
Example: On the ground the Captain is always the PF (even if is the FO sector), so if during taxi out we have a fire bell the captain will stop the a/c and ask to state the malfunction-verify and call the FO-PNF for the appropriate QRH-recall actions.Then if we decide to evacuate the actions to be taken are split in Capt and Fo recall-actions and the captain is the one shutting down the engines and pulling the fire handle.
In flight a different story, the PF-PNF logic apply for cklists apart for the emergency descent one(in my company) where its clearly stated that the Captain assumes the PF role,this is valid for the RTO procudure as well.
Hope that helps!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: dublin
Age: 40
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who pulls the fire handle?
While you idiots are sitting there debating who's job it is to pull the fire handle I hope for your own sake there's an engineer or a baggage handler with more commen sense than you guys have, walking by the wheel well to pull the fire handle for you. Not everything needs a check list.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well cheif, this was one hell of a professional posting. Looks like you are the real trained man to work with.
For all the others, the B737 has no recall items for an evacuation checklist.
And that is the checklist to call for in case of on-ground fire.
Captain calls for checklist and acts
First Officer reads and confirms action
This is our procedure.
For all the others, the B737 has no recall items for an evacuation checklist.
And that is the checklist to call for in case of on-ground fire.
Captain calls for checklist and acts
First Officer reads and confirms action
This is our procedure.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The White House
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Chief... great post... and you probably aware that the engineer/baggage dude can only shut down the APU from the wheel well... of course you did..
As to Areas of Responsibility.. Vol 1 NP11.6 - 11.7 clearly show the Engine Start Levers and Fire Warning Switches being a 'Joint Responsibility Item".
In our company though, we run the appropriate checklist with same responsibilities on the ground as if still in the air.. ie.. Fire Warning on the ground is treated the same way as Engine Fire Severe Damage etc etc as in the air.. thus Capt performs A/T disengage, thrust lever closed, then FO follows with the rest.....
As to Areas of Responsibility.. Vol 1 NP11.6 - 11.7 clearly show the Engine Start Levers and Fire Warning Switches being a 'Joint Responsibility Item".
In our company though, we run the appropriate checklist with same responsibilities on the ground as if still in the air.. ie.. Fire Warning on the ground is treated the same way as Engine Fire Severe Damage etc etc as in the air.. thus Capt performs A/T disengage, thrust lever closed, then FO follows with the rest.....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nightrider, in my company we first act on recall then the FO on captain command read the cklist for confirmation. As I said depend on what specific procedure your company as implemented, in my company the evacuation cklist was introduced only few years ago!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 43
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, a good question and one worthy of a constructive response..chief
I think fundamentally each company will provide their own guidance or adjust, if required, manufacturers guidance on things like recall items / emergency procedures.
In our company (737 operator utilising boeing SOPS) as others have remarked above, the Capt is always PF on the ground. With the exception of (737 specific) the single recall item for aborted engine start which is completed by FO or PM, the Captain completes all recall items on the ground.
I obviously cannot vouch for other operator's procedures but the evacuation NNC is completed with reference to the QRH. For example if a rejected TO has occured caused by an engine fire, the Captain would complete the Engine Fire Severe Damge / Seperation recall items. If subsequently an evacuation was required this would be done by reference (being read by the FO / PM) the outstanding items on the on the overhead panel would be actioned by the FO and the outstanding items on the control stand by the Captain / PF.
Hope this helps a little, although i suspect you'll find about 50 different ways of skinning that cat..or pulling that fire handle!!
I think fundamentally each company will provide their own guidance or adjust, if required, manufacturers guidance on things like recall items / emergency procedures.
In our company (737 operator utilising boeing SOPS) as others have remarked above, the Capt is always PF on the ground. With the exception of (737 specific) the single recall item for aborted engine start which is completed by FO or PM, the Captain completes all recall items on the ground.
I obviously cannot vouch for other operator's procedures but the evacuation NNC is completed with reference to the QRH. For example if a rejected TO has occured caused by an engine fire, the Captain would complete the Engine Fire Severe Damge / Seperation recall items. If subsequently an evacuation was required this would be done by reference (being read by the FO / PM) the outstanding items on the on the overhead panel would be actioned by the FO and the outstanding items on the control stand by the Captain / PF.
Hope this helps a little, although i suspect you'll find about 50 different ways of skinning that cat..or pulling that fire handle!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just cannot believe that there is any doubt about this, in such an emergency surely there is a set proceedure.
As an Engineer if I was carrying out a ground run and this happened I am trained to take the necessary actions.
I always occupy the Captain's seat for ground runs and would be the one to make decisions and take action, surely it is the Captain's role when Flight Crew are in charge?
As far as the actual event goes, we are trained to silence the alarm then close the power lever, IF warning still there close start lever, IF still there pull fire handle and wait one minute, IF still there fire shot 1, IF still there after another minute fire shot 2 and evacuate aircraft.
However most Instructors say pull fire handle, fire 1, fire 2, and run like Hell.
OR what steps do you take in the event of an engine fire?
Bloody big ones......................
As an Engineer if I was carrying out a ground run and this happened I am trained to take the necessary actions.
I always occupy the Captain's seat for ground runs and would be the one to make decisions and take action, surely it is the Captain's role when Flight Crew are in charge?
As far as the actual event goes, we are trained to silence the alarm then close the power lever, IF warning still there close start lever, IF still there pull fire handle and wait one minute, IF still there fire shot 1, IF still there after another minute fire shot 2 and evacuate aircraft.
However most Instructors say pull fire handle, fire 1, fire 2, and run like Hell.
OR what steps do you take in the event of an engine fire?
Bloody big ones......................
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you airsupport, for one of the most useless and BTW incorrect post I`ve ever seen.
We were not discussing about the procudure, but about the different ways of doing it.
However are you really sure that you time after disch. a bottle on the ground
Take care MATE
We were not discussing about the procudure, but about the different ways of doing it.
However are you really sure that you time after disch. a bottle on the ground
Take care MATE
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've trained pilots for a number of airlines (UK based, predominately) and ALL of them had the non-flying pilot (PNF/PM/NHP) action the drills when airborne. Basically, whoever is/was flying the aeroplane continues to do that whilst the non-flyer does the memory drills with every stage "confirmed" by the Pilot Flying (PF/HP) before the action is taken. This includes the fire handle.
On the ground, the majority of those airlines had the Captain doing what he's paid for (managing the flight deck, managing the crew etc.) whilst the FO actions the Fire drill. The Captain will assume the role of PF after a rejected take-off and then identify the nature of the problem (Fire is usually pretty straight forward when it come to identification). Then the Captain will tell the FO which drill to action, allowing the Captain to monitor those drills.
The above was how we did it in the RAF, too (on my particular fleet).
Some companies specify that the FO will do the drill UNmonitored, whilst the Captain liaises with Cabin Crew and ATC.
Having just checked my Boeing 737-400 QRH, it quite clearly states that in the case of a passenger evacuation, the Captain will operate the fire handles - but does not give a specific "Engine Fire on the Ground" drill.
However, the single most important thing is for everyone to know how THEIR company wants it done. That matters more than what the actual SOP is - because unless all crew members know what they are meant to do, there is a chance that something will be missed.
On the ground, the majority of those airlines had the Captain doing what he's paid for (managing the flight deck, managing the crew etc.) whilst the FO actions the Fire drill. The Captain will assume the role of PF after a rejected take-off and then identify the nature of the problem (Fire is usually pretty straight forward when it come to identification). Then the Captain will tell the FO which drill to action, allowing the Captain to monitor those drills.
The above was how we did it in the RAF, too (on my particular fleet).
Some companies specify that the FO will do the drill UNmonitored, whilst the Captain liaises with Cabin Crew and ATC.
Having just checked my Boeing 737-400 QRH, it quite clearly states that in the case of a passenger evacuation, the Captain will operate the fire handles - but does not give a specific "Engine Fire on the Ground" drill.
However, the single most important thing is for everyone to know how THEIR company wants it done. That matters more than what the actual SOP is - because unless all crew members know what they are meant to do, there is a chance that something will be missed.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you idiots are sitting there debating who's job it is to pull the fire handle I hope for your own sake there's an engineer or a baggage handler with more commen sense than you guys have, walking by the wheel well to pull the fire handle for you. Not everything needs a check list.
I thought the discussion was about a crew working the problem in flight, not just a ground APU fire.
If it is the former then the discussion has highlighted the differences between operators and philosophies as to who does what and when. Some, as my old house did, had the Capt do the checklist items. Why have the F/O read the checklist and ask the Capt what to do while the Capt is trying to fly the airplane? Why not have the one who makes the decisions do the checklist, have the F/O put the airplane on autopilot and create a decent task loading? Philosophy. Not stupidity....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you airsupport, for one of the most useless and BTW incorrect post I`ve ever seen.
We were not discussing about the procudure, but about the different ways of doing it.
However are you really sure that you time after disch. a bottle on the ground
Take care MATE
We were not discussing about the procudure, but about the different ways of doing it.
However are you really sure that you time after disch. a bottle on the ground
Take care MATE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all the others, the B737 has no recall items for an evacuation checklist.
And that is the checklist to call for in case of on-ground fire.
Captain calls for checklist and acts
First Officer reads and confirms action
And that is the checklist to call for in case of on-ground fire.
Captain calls for checklist and acts
First Officer reads and confirms action
I wonder why Boeing switched from perfectly understandable Recall immediate actions to a casual wait while the first officer reads through the Evacuation checklist step by step.
On the ground, the majority of those airlines had the Captain doing what he's paid for (managing the flight deck, managing the crew etc.) whilst the FO actions the Fire drill
The whole concept of areas of responsibility has developed into a "this is my job - not yours so lay off the landing light switches they are MY responsibility - not bloody yours". And while you are up to it keep your hands of the APU fire switch I will pull it - not you. We now see the ultimate in pedantic stupidity when operators lay down in an Ops Manual exactly what page each pilot must have in front of him on the CDU on take off and during the climb and approach to landing. - conveniently forgetting that both pilots have the ability to select any page they like in less than five seconds on their CDU.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole concept of areas of responsibility has developed into a "this is my job - not yours so lay off the landing light switches they are MY responsibility - not bloody yours". And while you are up to it keep your hands off the APU fire switch I will pull it - not you. We now see the ultimate in pedantic stupidity when operators lay down in an Ops Manual exactly what page each pilot must have in front of him on the CDU on take off and during the climb and approach to landing. - conveniently forgetting that both pilots have the ability to select any page they like in less than five seconds on their CDU.
However, in my view this is a direct response to the presence of very junior First Officers new to the aeroplane, and the end result is procedures reduced to the lowest common denominator...IE: 'don't think, just do it, you don't need to understand the reason'.
Understanding and reason...out the window.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, a certain large, British airline has the following in the emergency brief for actions after an RTO:
Capt to FO: "You will action any fire or failure drill UNMONITORED whilst I liaise with the cabin crew and ATC."
In fact, several other UK airlines for whom I've trained pilots do the same. This obviously relies upon you having an FO you can trust - which they do because their selection and training are up to scratch.
However, as I stated previously, I think that who does what is less important than the crew KNOWING who does what. There are merits in the Captain doing the shutdown and merits in the FO doing it - but the most important thing is that the Captain and FO know what is expected of them and follow that SOP.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On an allied matter, I understand that Airbus specifies that in event of an engine fire on the ground, the 30 second timing between the firing (if necessary) of the second bottle, does not apply to a fire on the ground but only to an engine fire in the air. I understand the reason being that in the air the second bottle is only meant to be fired after the engine compressor rpm has wound down and thus allows the extinguishing agent to have a greater chance of being effective.
The extinguishant discharges into the nacelle/pylon/engine casing to put out fires around the engine .
The inside of the engine is meant to be on fire- that's why air, fuel and sparks are brought together in the combustion chambers. Fire is only a problem when it escapes from the engine (e.g. via a cracked combustion chamber) and causes a secondary fire in the fuel system, hydraulics, electrical wiring or even the metal of the airframe. This is why the extinguishant discharges around the engine itself, not into it (where it would have no effect).
The 30 seconds gives time for the first shot to have an effect, extinguish the fire and put out the fiire caption on the flightdeck. If the first shot works the second shot can be saved for later - in case you are unlucky enough for the fire to re-ignite.
On the ground, the 30 seconds does not apply because you don't need to keep one fire bottle in reserve. You blast both bottles into the nacelle, hopefully swamping any fire and if that doesn't work, you evacuate the aeroplane.
Company policy on evacuation varies - I have worked with SOPs where an evacuation was mandatory following an engine fire (even if it had extinguished) and others where it was left to the discretion of the crew. In the former case the company wanted passengers as far away as possible from the seat of fire. In the latter the company wanted to avoid the inevitable injuries that occur during evacuation (and to avoid having shocked passengers milling around amongst moving emergency vehicles).
Slightly off topic, but with reference to the Air France A340 accident in Toronto, do you recall that some of the passengers wandered straight into the path of traffic on a 6 (8?) lane highway after evacuation? In that case they had no choice but to evacuate but it could well be safer to keep pax on board and out of harm's way if at all possible.