suitable airport vs immediate landing
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 161
Likes: 7
From: N/A
suitable airport vs immediate landing
Boeing defines immediate landing as:
This is reflected in the Smoke, Fire or Fumes checklist, which explicitly says to “consider an immediate landing if the smoke, fire, or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable.”
However, for other checklists where the fire persists (e.g., Engine fire, APU fire, Cargo fire), the NNC states to land at the nearest suitable airport rather than to consider an immediate landing.
Why would those checklists use suitable airport rather than immediate landing?
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done. If a smoke, fire, or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, in a severe situation, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.
However, for other checklists where the fire persists (e.g., Engine fire, APU fire, Cargo fire), the NNC states to land at the nearest suitable airport rather than to consider an immediate landing.
Why would those checklists use suitable airport rather than immediate landing?
Fleet Manager
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 310
From: various places .....
Historically, there has been more than the odd aircraft lost when an in-flight fire leads to in-flight breakup. Probably the worst situation for a flight crew is an uncontrolled/uncontrollable fire.
Boeing et al can't foresee every possible variation on a theme. Perhaps what the documentation might be suggesting is that, in the event of this sort of extreme situation, you have a decision process choice of
(a) staying in the air, looking for a runway and plant it on the ground (while taking a punt on the aircraft's holding together in one piece during the time it might take to get to an appropriate airport and on the runway)
(b) go put it on the ground, right now, off runway, hoping like mad that it stays together long enough to try your hand at an off-field landing. If the wings fall off on the way, you're dead. If you manage to try your luck with a forced landing, some of you might end up dead but there is a chance of some surviving. Consider the Sioux City mishap, for instance - while the chaps got the aircraft to the runway, things went a bit awry then due to the phugoid's winning the hand ... but a great proportion of those on board survived when, in the cold hard light of day, everyone should have been killed. Very much a case similar to choosing an off-airport landing, I would suggest.
Sometimes you just have to pay your money and take your chances while hoping like mad that Lady Luck doesn't have it in for you on the day.
SOPs, QRHs, and so forth, are all good and well. Generally, they serve us very well in most situations. However, sometimes, we might find ourselves right out there on the end of the limb and Captain Speaking has to make a very difficult call and then bet on it. Some days, it really doesn't pay to get out of bed ...
Boeing et al can't foresee every possible variation on a theme. Perhaps what the documentation might be suggesting is that, in the event of this sort of extreme situation, you have a decision process choice of
(a) staying in the air, looking for a runway and plant it on the ground (while taking a punt on the aircraft's holding together in one piece during the time it might take to get to an appropriate airport and on the runway)
(b) go put it on the ground, right now, off runway, hoping like mad that it stays together long enough to try your hand at an off-field landing. If the wings fall off on the way, you're dead. If you manage to try your luck with a forced landing, some of you might end up dead but there is a chance of some surviving. Consider the Sioux City mishap, for instance - while the chaps got the aircraft to the runway, things went a bit awry then due to the phugoid's winning the hand ... but a great proportion of those on board survived when, in the cold hard light of day, everyone should have been killed. Very much a case similar to choosing an off-airport landing, I would suggest.
Sometimes you just have to pay your money and take your chances while hoping like mad that Lady Luck doesn't have it in for you on the day.
SOPs, QRHs, and so forth, are all good and well. Generally, they serve us very well in most situations. However, sometimes, we might find ourselves right out there on the end of the limb and Captain Speaking has to make a very difficult call and then bet on it. Some days, it really doesn't pay to get out of bed ...
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 118
Likes: 36
From: Somewhere
From boeing
“Land At Nearest Suitable Airport
There are some situations where the flight crew must land at the nearest suitable airport. These situations include, but are not limited to, conditions where:
• the non-normal checklist includes the item "Plan to land at the nearest
suitable airport."
• fire or smoke continues
• only one AC power source remains (main engine generator, APU generator, or backup power system [both generators])
• any other situation determined by the flight crew to have a significant adverse effect on safety if the flight is continued.
Immediate Landing
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done.
If a smoke, fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, in a severe situation, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.”
I believe Boeing’s philosophy is clearly stated: whenever the checklist specifies “land at the nearest suitable airport”—such as in cases of fire or smoke—it applies. However, once the fire or smoke becomes uncontrollable, it is no longer just a matter of the nearest suitable airport; it requires an immediate landing, regardless of whether the checklist says “land at the nearest suitable airport” or not.
Fire or smoke that can be controlled, even if not fully extinguished: land at the nearest suitable airport
Fire or smoke that cannot be controlled: immediate landing.
The checklists that state “land at the nearest suitable airport” are meant to assist pilots in deciding which situations require such action, but they are not limited only to those specific checklists.As for the question of why it does not explicitly say “immediate landing”: if it were written that way, fire and smoke would then need to be separated into two categories—controllable and uncontrollable—or the checklist itself would need to be divided into two parts. In reality, the underlying principle already covers this distinction, so there is no real need to write the checklist in that manner.
“Land At Nearest Suitable Airport
There are some situations where the flight crew must land at the nearest suitable airport. These situations include, but are not limited to, conditions where:
• the non-normal checklist includes the item "Plan to land at the nearest
suitable airport."
• fire or smoke continues
• only one AC power source remains (main engine generator, APU generator, or backup power system [both generators])
• any other situation determined by the flight crew to have a significant adverse effect on safety if the flight is continued.
Immediate Landing
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done.
If a smoke, fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, in a severe situation, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.”
I believe Boeing’s philosophy is clearly stated: whenever the checklist specifies “land at the nearest suitable airport”—such as in cases of fire or smoke—it applies. However, once the fire or smoke becomes uncontrollable, it is no longer just a matter of the nearest suitable airport; it requires an immediate landing, regardless of whether the checklist says “land at the nearest suitable airport” or not.
Fire or smoke that can be controlled, even if not fully extinguished: land at the nearest suitable airport
Fire or smoke that cannot be controlled: immediate landing.
The checklists that state “land at the nearest suitable airport” are meant to assist pilots in deciding which situations require such action, but they are not limited only to those specific checklists.As for the question of why it does not explicitly say “immediate landing”: if it were written that way, fire and smoke would then need to be separated into two categories—controllable and uncontrollable—or the checklist itself would need to be divided into two parts. In reality, the underlying principle already covers this distinction, so there is no real need to write the checklist in that manner.
Last edited by Noknoipobin; 18th September 2025 at 08:43.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 543
Likes: 339
From: Blue sky
When the NNC says "land at the nearest suitable airport", it says the problem should be "under control", you get on the ground and there should be a viable chance that the aircraft is "re-usable" as well.
When the checklist says "consider immediate landing", it implies the aircraft will not be re-useable as no fire brigade in the world will be able to save the aircraft. If you look at the expedited descent for freighter procedure, it gives a good outline how to handle these procedures from a descent management point of view. That shouldn't stop you from using your brain to not rush and at least put it on the ground without killing yourself on the way. But once you landed, get out and be happy your alive.
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
it implies the aircraft will not be re-useable as no fire brigade in the world will be able to save the aircraft. .......... That shouldn't stop you from using your brain to not rush and at least put it on the ground without killing yourself on the way. But once you landed, get out and be happy your alive.
I opine that aircraft manufacturer's are reluctant to include the phrase "Crash the aircraft ASAP" in a flight manual (it just looks bad). But that should be what should be written, and I have formally asked this of the regulator (they still won't). My reasoning being, that no matter what you direct a pilot to do, they are going to do their best to preserve life. But, when you tell a pilot to "land" an aircraft, you are implying that you expect it to be reusable after the event. They will instinctively look for a suitable place to "land", which may delay getting the aircraft on the surface (which could include ditching) If the flight manual has wording which implies that the situation is now such that there is no longer an expectation of a reusable aircraft following the event, saving life becomes the only objective - pick a clear level place ahead, and do your best.
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
To PilotDAR’s point, in the C-5 manual we actually had “prepare to ditch or crash land” in the cargo fire procedure when the fire was considered uncontrollable. The old C-124 engine with the various magnesium components in the mounts. Different risk analysis, but probably the idea of an immediate landing.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 492
From: Europe
From boeing
“Land At Nearest Suitable Airport
There are some situations where the flight crew must land at the nearest suitable airport. These situations include, but are not limited to, conditions where:
• the non-normal checklist includes the item "Plan to land at the nearest
suitable airport."
• fire or smoke continues
• only one AC power source remains (main engine generator, APU generator, or backup power system [both generators])
• any other situation determined by the flight crew to have a significant adverse effect on safety if the flight is continued.
Immediate Landing
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done.
If a smoke, fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, in a severe situation, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.”
I believe Boeing’s philosophy is clearly stated: whenever the checklist specifies “land at the nearest suitable airport”—such as in cases of fire or smoke—it applies. However, once the fire or smoke becomes uncontrollable, it is no longer just a matter of the nearest suitable airport; it requires an immediate landing, regardless of whether the checklist says “land at the nearest suitable airport” or not.
Fire or smoke that can be controlled, even if not fully extinguished: land at the nearest suitable airport
Fire or smoke that cannot be controlled: immediate landing.
The checklists that state “land at the nearest suitable airport” are meant to assist pilots in deciding which situations require such action, but they are not limited only to those specific checklists.As for the question of why it does not explicitly say “immediate landing”: if it were written that way, fire and smoke would then need to be separated into two categories—controllable and uncontrollable—or the checklist itself would need to be divided into two parts. In reality, the underlying principle already covers this distinction, so there is no real need to write the checklist in that manner.
“Land At Nearest Suitable Airport
There are some situations where the flight crew must land at the nearest suitable airport. These situations include, but are not limited to, conditions where:
• the non-normal checklist includes the item "Plan to land at the nearest
suitable airport."
• fire or smoke continues
• only one AC power source remains (main engine generator, APU generator, or backup power system [both generators])
• any other situation determined by the flight crew to have a significant adverse effect on safety if the flight is continued.
Immediate Landing
It must be stressed that for smoke that continues or a fire that cannot be positively confirmed to be completely extinguished, the earliest possible descent, landing, and evacuation must be done.
If a smoke, fire or fumes situation becomes uncontrollable, the flight crew should consider an immediate landing. Immediate landing implies immediate diversion to a runway. However, in a severe situation, the flight crew should consider an overweight landing, a tailwind landing, an off-airport landing, or a ditching.”
I believe Boeing’s philosophy is clearly stated: whenever the checklist specifies “land at the nearest suitable airport”—such as in cases of fire or smoke—it applies. However, once the fire or smoke becomes uncontrollable, it is no longer just a matter of the nearest suitable airport; it requires an immediate landing, regardless of whether the checklist says “land at the nearest suitable airport” or not.
Fire or smoke that can be controlled, even if not fully extinguished: land at the nearest suitable airport
Fire or smoke that cannot be controlled: immediate landing.
The checklists that state “land at the nearest suitable airport” are meant to assist pilots in deciding which situations require such action, but they are not limited only to those specific checklists.As for the question of why it does not explicitly say “immediate landing”: if it were written that way, fire and smoke would then need to be separated into two categories—controllable and uncontrollable—or the checklist itself would need to be divided into two parts. In reality, the underlying principle already covers this distinction, so there is no real need to write the checklist in that manner.
However, the thread starters question still stands I think. Why is the option of an ‘immediate landing’ specifically mentioned for one checklist but not for the other, whilst the same principle applies? On my current fleet we see something similar. The words ‘immediate landing’ explicitly appear in the cabin smoke/fire checklist, but not in checklists associated with engine or APU fire (which in fairness are still classified as a red LAND ASAP).
I’m curious as to why. For sure I agree that the ‘immediate landing’ option should be stressed for an uncontrollable fire in the cabin!
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,305
Likes: 8
From: Surrey
Do pilots get some sort of psychological training to enable them to decide to crash their plane? The nearest I have come to anything like that was flying a glider in my teens when theoretically I might have had to climb out and use a parachute, and to this day I'm far from sure I would have. OTOH landing away from the airfield was meant to be fairly routine.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,683
Likes: 3,357
From: Everett, WA
We have human pilots because sometimes we need human judgement as to the best course of action. With an uncontrollable fire inside the pressure vessel, your time is severely limited, and you need to get the aircraft out of the air ASAP - even if that means ditching or an 'off airport' landing.
If the fire is outside (engine, APU, etc.), you need the pilot to exercise some of that human judgement as to if the aircraft is going to become non-airworthy/uncontrollable. While uncontrollable engine fires are very bad, they are not automatically catastrophic. Even if the engine mounts fail and the engine departs - the aircraft is usually still airworthy. There is a rather famous case of a 707 the experienced a catastrophic engine failure on an outboard engine, resulting in an uncontrollable fire that eventually led to the engine and the wing outboard of the engine departing the aircraft - yet they landed safely, and no one was injured. As it turns out, one of the passengers had a home movie camera, and filmed the event out of his window - and the film ended up on the nightly news (I have a memory of seeing that while watching the news with my parents in utter amazement).
OTOH, with a modern twin - if an uncontrolled engine fire caused the entire wing outboard of the engine to depart, I rather doubt the aircraft would still be controllable...But that's also an extraordinarily unlikely scenario.
Humans being fallible, they won't always get it right. But as a designer, I'd rather put the decision in the hands of the people who know the situation they are in, rather than writing some hard and fast procedure based on complete conjecture of the situation the pilots are faced with.
If the fire is outside (engine, APU, etc.), you need the pilot to exercise some of that human judgement as to if the aircraft is going to become non-airworthy/uncontrollable. While uncontrollable engine fires are very bad, they are not automatically catastrophic. Even if the engine mounts fail and the engine departs - the aircraft is usually still airworthy. There is a rather famous case of a 707 the experienced a catastrophic engine failure on an outboard engine, resulting in an uncontrollable fire that eventually led to the engine and the wing outboard of the engine departing the aircraft - yet they landed safely, and no one was injured. As it turns out, one of the passengers had a home movie camera, and filmed the event out of his window - and the film ended up on the nightly news (I have a memory of seeing that while watching the news with my parents in utter amazement).
OTOH, with a modern twin - if an uncontrolled engine fire caused the entire wing outboard of the engine to depart, I rather doubt the aircraft would still be controllable...But that's also an extraordinarily unlikely scenario.
Humans being fallible, they won't always get it right. But as a designer, I'd rather put the decision in the hands of the people who know the situation they are in, rather than writing some hard and fast procedure based on complete conjecture of the situation the pilots are faced with.
Joined: Dec 1998
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 581
Likes: 412
From: UK
One of the few successful immediate landings I can think of. RAF Nimrod in Moray Firth.
https://www.ukserials.com/pdflosses/...0516_xw666.pdf
https://www.ukserials.com/pdflosses/...0516_xw666.pdf
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 353
From: UK
Bristol Britannia in the Severn estuary; a judgement call of an un-contained engine fire vs structural strength.
https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/335175
https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/335175
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 118
Likes: 36
From: Somewhere
I’m not current on Boeing aircraft anymore but this is indeed how I have always understood it.
However, the thread starters question still stands I think. Why is the option of an ‘immediate landing’ specifically mentioned for one checklist but not for the other, whilst the same principle applies? On my current fleet we see something similar. The words ‘immediate landing’ explicitly appear in the cabin smoke/fire checklist, but not in checklists associated with engine or APU fire (which in fairness are still classified as a red LAND ASAP).
I’m curious as to why. For sure I agree that the ‘immediate landing’ option should be stressed for an uncontrollable fire in the cabin!
However, the thread starters question still stands I think. Why is the option of an ‘immediate landing’ specifically mentioned for one checklist but not for the other, whilst the same principle applies? On my current fleet we see something similar. The words ‘immediate landing’ explicitly appear in the cabin smoke/fire checklist, but not in checklists associated with engine or APU fire (which in fairness are still classified as a red LAND ASAP).
I’m curious as to why. For sure I agree that the ‘immediate landing’ option should be stressed for an uncontrollable fire in the cabin!
My understanding is that with smoke/fire/fume, the checklist cannot always identify the exact source of the fire or smoke, and there are no extinguishing systems for every possible location. That means we cannot afford to delay. This is why the checklist uses the wording “land as soon as possible, if needed” (depending on the specific situation).
In contrast, with engine fire, APU fire, or cargo fire, the source is clearly identified and confirmed by the fire detection systems. That way, you know immediately where the fire has occurred.More importantly, there are extinguishing systems available to control the fire, so it doesn’t require an immediate diversion in every case. However, if the fire cannot be controlled, then it falls under the criteria for LASP or even an immediate landing.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 79
From: Denver
However, for other checklists where the fire persists (e.g., Engine fire, APU fire, Cargo fire), the NNC states to land at the nearest suitable airport rather than to consider an immediate landing.
Why would those checklists use suitable airport rather than immediate landing?
Why would those checklists use suitable airport rather than immediate landing?
I would point out that the APU and engines of Boeing aircraft are NOT within the pressure vessel (cabin and cockpit) containing humans and their breathable air supply. And the APU and engines, along with the cargo hold, have dedicated fire-suppression systems that are not present in the cabin and cockpit (because the suppresants themselves may be toxic), barring a hand-held extinguisher on a much smaller scale.
Therefore a smoke/fumes/fire event in the pressure-cabin is a more immediate threat to human life (via smoke/toxic-fumes inhalation, and possible crew disablement and loss of control) than an APU or engine fire outside (cargo fires may be more equivocal; cf: Valujet crash, Miami, 1996).
That is a significant difference, although possibly a difference of minutes only, depending on the exact situation. But "minutes only" are also the difference between "immediately" and "first suitable."
What would correspondents here think of an "immediate" landing, due to an engine or APU fire, on rough terrain, that cracked the pressure-vessel and the fuel tanks, and turned the (previously fire-free) cabin into a cremation oven? A suitable outcome?
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 845
From: Tring, UK
I see now. I must have misunderstood the actual question. The point is why smoke/fire/fume is classified as land as soon as possible (LASP), while other cases are only nearest suitable airport.
My understanding is that with smoke/fire/fume, the checklist cannot always identify the exact source of the fire or smoke, and there are no extinguishing systems for every possible location. That means we cannot afford to delay. This is why the checklist uses the wording “land as soon as possible, if needed” (depending on the specific situation).
In contrast, with engine fire, APU fire, or cargo fire, the source is clearly identified and confirmed by the fire detection systems. That way, you know immediately where the fire has occurred.More importantly, there are extinguishing systems available to control the fire, so it doesn’t require an immediate diversion in every case. However, if the fire cannot be controlled, then it falls under the criteria for LASP or even an immediate landing.
My understanding is that with smoke/fire/fume, the checklist cannot always identify the exact source of the fire or smoke, and there are no extinguishing systems for every possible location. That means we cannot afford to delay. This is why the checklist uses the wording “land as soon as possible, if needed” (depending on the specific situation).
In contrast, with engine fire, APU fire, or cargo fire, the source is clearly identified and confirmed by the fire detection systems. That way, you know immediately where the fire has occurred.More importantly, there are extinguishing systems available to control the fire, so it doesn’t require an immediate diversion in every case. However, if the fire cannot be controlled, then it falls under the criteria for LASP or even an immediate landing.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Airbus had a presentation in which it stated that fire detected on board can become uncontrollable in eight minutes and crew may have as little as 15mts to put aircraft on ground. The actions and check list is based on this philosophy.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Likes: 65
From: Canada
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 845
From: Tring, UK
I think Swissair 111 was the catalyst for a rethink of policy and checklists. There was a possibility that it might have been more survivable had they just dived it at the nearest runway.
It’s a very difficult decision if you’re some time away from any airfield. If there’s obvious smoke/heat and failing systems then it’s been made for you but what if there isn’t? There are parallels to an evacuation on the ground in that you know it is likely that people will be injured and/or killed during it, especially on a widebody. It’s a bit easier in Europe where you are often within 15mins of some tarmac and the outcome of a expedited landing is not generally in doubt but the same scenario over northern Canada in the winter is very different. Dark, -30C, rocks, frozen lakes and polar bears... You’d want to be nigh on 100% sure you were going to burn to death in the air before you attempted to put it down somewhere.
It’s a very difficult decision if you’re some time away from any airfield. If there’s obvious smoke/heat and failing systems then it’s been made for you but what if there isn’t? There are parallels to an evacuation on the ground in that you know it is likely that people will be injured and/or killed during it, especially on a widebody. It’s a bit easier in Europe where you are often within 15mins of some tarmac and the outcome of a expedited landing is not generally in doubt but the same scenario over northern Canada in the winter is very different. Dark, -30C, rocks, frozen lakes and polar bears... You’d want to be nigh on 100% sure you were going to burn to death in the air before you attempted to put it down somewhere.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 51
Likes: 9
From: N/A
Lots of valuable input here, and I agree with most of it, especially the cabin vs. external fire distinction. Still, I believe the OP’s concern remains valid. If suppression hasn’t worked, the airplane is burning, and every minute in the air increases risk. This is not a situation where we buy time to search for a “suitable” alternate. My priority would be to “land as soon as possible”, regardless of whether the nearest option meets “suitability” criteria.
I believe the NNC should emphasize “immediate landing” in such cases.
From the flight deck perspective, I doubt any of us would be confident that a persisting engine or APU fire could be contained for an extended period. In such a scenario, diverting to an airport 30 minutes away simply because the departure airport is below minima or has a tailwind a few knots beyond limitation, even with an ILS available would not, in my view, be the safer option.
I believe the NNC should emphasize “immediate landing” in such cases.
From the flight deck perspective, I doubt any of us would be confident that a persisting engine or APU fire could be contained for an extended period. In such a scenario, diverting to an airport 30 minutes away simply because the departure airport is below minima or has a tailwind a few knots beyond limitation, even with an ILS available would not, in my view, be the safer option.
Joined: Sep 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 889
From: Canada
I think Swissair 111 was the catalyst for a rethink of policy and checklists. There was a possibility that it might have been more survivable had they just dived it at the nearest runway.
It’s a very difficult decision if you’re some time away from any airfield. If there’s obvious smoke/heat and failing systems then it’s been made for you but what if there isn’t? There are parallels to an evacuation on the ground in that you know it is likely that people will be injured and/or killed during it, especially on a widebody. It’s a bit easier in Europe where you are often within 15mins of some tarmac and the outcome of a expedited landing is not generally in doubt but the same scenario over northern Canada in the winter is very different. Dark, -30C, rocks, frozen lakes and polar bears... You’d want to be nigh on 100% sure you were going to burn to death in the air before you attempted to put it down somewhere.
It’s a very difficult decision if you’re some time away from any airfield. If there’s obvious smoke/heat and failing systems then it’s been made for you but what if there isn’t? There are parallels to an evacuation on the ground in that you know it is likely that people will be injured and/or killed during it, especially on a widebody. It’s a bit easier in Europe where you are often within 15mins of some tarmac and the outcome of a expedited landing is not generally in doubt but the same scenario over northern Canada in the winter is very different. Dark, -30C, rocks, frozen lakes and polar bears... You’d want to be nigh on 100% sure you were going to burn to death in the air before you attempted to put it down somewhere.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 492
From: Europe
Lots of valuable input here, and I agree with most of it, especially the cabin vs. external fire distinction. Still, I believe the OP’s concern remains valid. If suppression hasn’t worked, the airplane is burning, and every minute in the air increases risk. This is not a situation where we buy time to search for a “suitable” alternate. My priority would be to “land as soon as possible”, regardless of whether the nearest option meets “suitability” criteria.
I believe the NNC should emphasize “immediate landing” in such cases.
From the flight deck perspective, I doubt any of us would be confident that a persisting engine or APU fire could be contained for an extended period. In such a scenario, diverting to an airport 30 minutes away simply because the departure airport is below minima or has a tailwind a few knots beyond limitation, even with an ILS available would not, in my view, be the safer option.
I believe the NNC should emphasize “immediate landing” in such cases.
From the flight deck perspective, I doubt any of us would be confident that a persisting engine or APU fire could be contained for an extended period. In such a scenario, diverting to an airport 30 minutes away simply because the departure airport is below minima or has a tailwind a few knots beyond limitation, even with an ILS available would not, in my view, be the safer option.
At least there is this general statement about uncontrollable fires somewhere in the B manuals.
My current type is a bit more specific in their guidance (suitable airport vs. safe landing on any available airport in case of persistent fire), but also stops short of saying 'ditch the plane' in other scenarios than uncontrollable cabin smoke/fire.