New ICAO Emergency Response Drill code "Z" for dangerous goods
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On a lake somewhere fishing
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New ICAO Emergency Response Drill code "Z" for dangerous goods
I wonder if anyone out there is aware of any discussions concerning the new drill code "Z" for lithium batteries as published in the new version of “Emergency Response Guidance for Aircraft Incidents Involving Dangerous Goods (ICAO Doc. 9481)".
Specifically, the comment, " aircraft cargo fire suppression system may not extinguish or contain the fire, consider landing immediately." has very serious connotations.
I wonder how Boeing views this wording and how the terminology differs from their wording "land at nearest suitable airport" which is included in their lower deck fire procedure in the QRH. Don't forget, the last thing the crew sees before departure is the NOTOC which advises them to "land immediately" in the event of a fire in the compartment containing the lithium batteries. Should they take this to mean 'off-airport', or ditching if over the pacific?
I guess the situation would certainly dictate the course of action; however, I think there should be some serious pause and reflection before running the ditching checklist.
In the end crews should ditch if necessary, but not necessarily ditch
I would have posted this on the Freight Dogs forum but there didn’t seem to be much tech content and the lithium battery thread has run its course.
Specifically, the comment, " aircraft cargo fire suppression system may not extinguish or contain the fire, consider landing immediately." has very serious connotations.
I wonder how Boeing views this wording and how the terminology differs from their wording "land at nearest suitable airport" which is included in their lower deck fire procedure in the QRH. Don't forget, the last thing the crew sees before departure is the NOTOC which advises them to "land immediately" in the event of a fire in the compartment containing the lithium batteries. Should they take this to mean 'off-airport', or ditching if over the pacific?
I guess the situation would certainly dictate the course of action; however, I think there should be some serious pause and reflection before running the ditching checklist.
In the end crews should ditch if necessary, but not necessarily ditch
I would have posted this on the Freight Dogs forum but there didn’t seem to be much tech content and the lithium battery thread has run its course.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: far too low
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a very worthwhile comment and one that requires serious debate. Up until know I'd only consider ditching if the a/c couldn't fly for whatever reason. Does an uncontrollable fire mean the a/c can't fly.
One for serious debate here, internationally, my next sim and crm courses.
One for serious debate here, internationally, my next sim and crm courses.
Well, the average time between first indication of a fuselage fire and the aircracft impacting the ground is 20 minutes so you do have to think about an off field landing in some parts of the world.
I seem to remember a study done by in the USA found that the time lapse from the the moment that an onboard fire was deemed to be out of control to loss of control of the aircraft was eleven minutes and so a ditching might be the best option sometimes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On a lake somewhere fishing
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the comments. Perhaps this issue is too new. I've got some feelers out with Boeing and IFALPA (co-producer with ICAO of the red book) to see what the intent of the wording is. I'll pass them along through this forum if/when available.
On the subject of ditching in the North Pacific, I've heard it said that one should not attempt to ditch there at less than a -10 degree attitude
On the subject of ditching in the North Pacific, I've heard it said that one should not attempt to ditch there at less than a -10 degree attitude
