:sad:

I well remember this incident. I was living there at the time and heard the news on the radio on my way to work at FAJS.
I wouldn't quite dare to say much more than that there seems to be a veil of silence in that valley of death.:

South African Airways Flight 295
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

On November 28, 1987, Flight 295, a Boeing B-747-244B Combi, registered ZS-SAS, called the Helderberg and flying the colors of South African Airways, took off from Chiang Kai Shek International Airport near Taipei, Taiwan, on a flight to Johannesburg via Plaisance International Airport in the Republic of Mauritius. 140 passengers and 19 crew were on the manifest.

While the Helderberg was over the Indian Ocean, a fire had occurred in the main cargo hold, originating on one of the six cargo pallets inside. The fire disoriented and incapacitated the crew, leading to the crash. All 159 people on board were killed.

A commission of inquiry was chaired out by Judge Cecil Margo, who determined eventually that no clear causes for the crash could be determined. Nonetheless, of late there has been significant of controversy around the crash and the subsequent commission's report, with some claiming that the aircraft was carrying dangerous cargo related to the government's weapons programs.

This was further enhanced by the appearance of a cockpit voice recording transcript, allegedly from the Helderberg, which revealed that the captain notified the crew that the plane was carrying explosives. The captain had purportedly initially refused to fly, but he flew anyway, after having been threatened with immediate dismissal. However, experts who were involved in the Helderberg investigation immediately contested the authenticity of the transcript, claiming it was fraudulent.

The result was that the South African Department of Transport conducted a review of all the evidence and new developments. In 2002 it announced that no new evidence had emerged that would justify a new inquiry into the crash.

Therefore, the finding of the commission chaired by Judge Margo, which found no definitive cause, remains the official standpoint on the crash.

*

You can read more on the matter here.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/histor...GO/2chap6b.htm

I do seem to remember that the fire apparently started at TOD and that the poor blighters only just didn't make it into Plaisance.:suspect:

This got me thinking about burning balloons. I suppose the duration of their flight once the fire starts depends on their height at the time... :uhoh:

DHL A300 back into Baghdad, 25mins approx, wing/fuel fire..

There was an advert promoting a new series of "Air Crash Investigation" on one of the Discovery channels last night, and this incident was part of the ad. So I guess they will be covering it in some detail, if you can look past the hysteria! No idea when though.

I had used to have a copy of the Margo report on the Springbok 295 accident, the CVR indicates that the crew may have attempted to aleviate the smoke problem by opening one or more of the ac doors.
Also the fire that eventually brought the aircraft down was actually a re-ignition of a fire much earlier in the flight, this is where it gets complicated....none of this is mentioned in the report.
Not sure if the plane broke up before impact.
I have a question with regards to a cabin fire, as a last resort, what would happen if you depressurised the cabin?

:hmm:

No real idea on the de-pressurisation/fire conundrum.
Off the top of the head I should have thought initial smoke dissipation followed by increased fire problems because of increased oxygen supply?

I think that there was a lot that never came out concerning the Helderberg. I don't think the aeroplane broke up before impact. I do seem to remember that the fire started in the rear hold and that the FO either couldn't get the interconnecting door fully open and/or that he was unable to access the fire extinguisher which was behind the door?

I have always rather felt with this incident, that it would be rather injudicious to enquire too deeply as to all the whys and wherefores.:\

B707 cargo over rr4ance with #3 engine missing and wing on fire. Later landed at an air force base and aircraft destroyed on ground.

B707 over SFO with #4 engine missing and wing on fire and outboard section missing. There is a photo taken by a passenger of the burning wing. Aircraft successfuly diverted to an airforce base.

Engine fires typically burn themselves out without burning into the wing or fuselage once the fuel is shutoff. The bigger problem is if the pylon to engine fireshield has been breeched or the engine fire bypasses the shield and reaches the fuselage or wing (with little airflow to stream it in back of the plane)

Yeah, I think your right, I must admit its been a long while since I actually read the report, it all resurfaced around '98, or '99, the families of the victims were pushing for the inquest to be re-opened.
Rumor had it that the aircraft was carrying rocket fuel or something similar for Armscor, there was then talk of intimidation...and so on.
I believe that Armscor used civilian aircraft a lot in the '70's and '80s, probably had a lot to do with the sanctions.

But as you say, perhaps we should just leave it at that.

Anyone else know the likely outcome if one were to depressurise the cabin in the event of a cabin fire?

Antic81,

On cargo aircraft - yes. On pax aircraft - well, the "rubber jungle" would drop, so each activated PSU would contribute to the oxygen content of the cabin. When the PSU runs out the O2 levels would drop back to ambient, but then the punters would not be around to congratulate the crew on their airborne firefighting skills :hmm: And in order for it to work you'd have to stay up at high level - not something I'd be very big on doing if a fire had broken out.

So it appears there is only one solution - emerg. descent and put the aircraft down somewhere ASAP. Land is a benefit, an airport with FRS a luxury. Re. the ditching - that's prolly the worst decision you can be faced with as a captain, 'cause you know that less than 50% are going to survive the first 5 minutes in the water - but what to do? Just hoping for the best as you race towards the nearest airport another hours flight away sounds like 0% survival rate to me, whereas a couple of people might survive in the water until SAR arrives :(

Empty

Pressure
 

Does pressure make any big difference in firefighting?

I think that the amount of oxygen per unit volume drops with pressure decrease - and so does heat capacity per volume, cannot see the direction of that effect. The viscosity and heat conductivity of gas should be independent of pressure.

Of course, opening cockpit windows to blow smoke out of cockpit can only be done if the plane is unpressurized...

PSU is set to operate at 14 000 feet, so that would be the maximum height possible - automatic deployment would make a major addition to fire intensity.

Can airliners ditch in one piece?

chornedsnorkack,

As an ex-firefighter, experience (and some long forgotten theoretical stuff) tells me that yes, pressure will make a difference - put partial pressure i.e. how much of that pressure is made up by oxygen, only takes effect at higher altitudes.

If you lower the pressure without changeing the partial pressure, e.g. by ventilating, the fire will flare (fair 'nuff, since lower presure will mean higher evaporation-rate = more gasseous contents in air = fire flares). Likewise, if you increase pressure by e.g. directing waterfog above the fire, you get a sh#tload of steam out of it (the figure 1680 ltr. steam per litre of water that evaporates completely springs to mind - anybody?). The generation of steam will both take a lot of the heat out of the fire and increase pressure, thereby smothering the fire. This method is useful if you need to put out class B fires but only have water available. But you gotta like saunas - if not, I wouldn't recommend it :E

If you lower both the pressure and the partial pressure - as in an aircraft cabin at, say, 8000 ft. cabin altitude - the fire will die down, but not extinguish until very low concentrations of O2 are present. And then you'd have to allow time for the fire to cool, otherwise it would re-ignite as cabin altitude drops and partial pressure goes up. So if you only have the crew to worry about, dumping the cabin is prolly a good idea - we can sit for 120 min. with masks on before we really have to do something. In the cargo ATRs, that would be the idea - get FD on O2, accomplish QRH, then F/O would swicth to portable 02 full-face-mask and go firefighting. Ho-hum...

Re. staying in one piece on ditching - well, afaik all aircraft with pod-mounted engines have shear-bolts in the struts that will allow the engines to break away rather than break up the wing on contact. The fuselage - depends on sea-state, wind direction & strength, if power & hydraulics are available before impact or not, and the skill of the crew. If all goes according to plan, see no reason why you shouldn't be able to keep fuselage fairly intact, and that should lead to a much more orderly evac, improving long-term survival chanches. But when you think of how willing some of the punters are to follow CC instructions, some will still try to swim to distant land, some will only cling to their family, some will overinflate their lifejackets, some will take off clothes in the wather, and some will not want to float face down in high winds. These people will die anyway within the first 15-20 minutes :mad:

PS - how many have practiced the ditching manoeuvre within the last 36 month sim-cycle? Some airlines seem to take it seriously, others adopt the "Nah, you'll never need it - here's another EFATO for you"-attitude.

Empty

Chornedsnorkak,

Do you remember the footage of the hi-jacked Ethiopean 767 that was ditched 500 yrds of the coast of the Comoros islands in November '96?
The ocean just seemed to rip the aircraft to pieces, the aircraft had run out of fuel and was gliding, but still.
I don't know how much shallower he could have made that approach even with power.
Personally I hope I never get to a point where all the options are spent and I have to make that kind of decision.

If I recall correctly (and I may not) the wing of the Ethiopian 767 hit the water first because a hi-jacker grabbed the controls at the last minute. I was under the impression it should have been ok if they landed wings level.

Who wants to se the FAA requirements regarding flammability which is actually the only requirement link is:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...11.7.201.34.20

or you can look for FAR part 25.851 - 25.869 for more explanation and test procedures.

That does not gives you the overall time how the whole structure will last but at least it gives you some intro in requirements.

Cheers

Sky Wave,

You are right about the wing hitting the water first, I remember watching it and thinking to myself, why isn't he wings level?
Its news to me that one of the idiots who hijacked the aircraft was the cause, although its highly likely due to the fact that they couldn't grasp the fact that the plane didn't have the fuel to reach their destination and were told this repeatedly by the pilots.
I know we have gone slightly off topic here and I do apologise, but there is something we could also consider from that particular tragedy, from what I recall the ocean was calm, weather was good and it was in daylight and very close to the shore in shallow water, I think the odds would be stacked right up against you if the weather was less than perfect, it was at night and half way across the atlantic...actually I'd rather not think about it!

Lithium Watch Batteries on SAA 295 ???
 

I recall a Flight International article at the time raised the suspicion that one Taiwanese shipper was less than forthcoming about the contents of his shipment:mad: :mad: :mad:

I doubt that pressure is changed in either case. After all, in uncontained spaces any change of total pressure would blow away very quickly and forcefully. Only in an intact fuselage is pressure a variable...
Do the simulators give realistic outcomes about airframe breakup and occupant safety?

So, while the airplanes can supposedly be made safe against engine fires and also can be proofed against belly hold fires, they cannot be protected against cabin/cockpit fires...

What does the belly hold safety rely on? Halon bottles?
These supposedly work by interrupting radical chain reaction, and do absolutely nothing about exothermic reactions from other reaction mechanisms... like lithium fire.

I can see a simple physics reason why no plane can be safe against post-crash fires (it carries a lot of fuel, for example Boeing 747-400ER has 240 000 litres, about 200 tons, except naturally if crashing due to fuel exhaustion).

But before crashing... the hold of Boeing 747-400ER is about 160 000 litres volume. Minus the cargo contained, of course. On sea level, 160 000 litres air weighs about 200 kg, if I get it right, and including about 50 kg oxygen. These numbers decrease by about one quarter in cruise and, back-of-the-envelope, to 40 % original value if the fuselage is decompressed to 25 000 feet.

If there is a fire in a cargo hold, does fresh air continue to enter the cargo hold, and does smoke and flames get to cabin and cockpit?

chornedsnorkack,

My bad, talking transient pressure here - it's typically done from behind a cocked door. And believe me, there are a lot of transient pressure changes in a burning house or aeroplane, either triggered by the fire or by the firefighters, and it does affect the characteristics of the fire.

Empty

Varig 820, a 707-345C, made a forced landing three miles short of Orly in 1973 after a flight from Rio. Fire in a rear toilet, around the time they were beginning the descent. The aircraft landed gear down in a cabbage patch and remained remarkably intact. Not sure how long it took from discovery of the fire to the forced landing, over twenty minutes I think; someone with a better memory or data to hand might assist there. All but eleven of the 134 on board died. Had an emergency descent and landing anywhere been initiated earlier most would have walked off.

There's a lot of good sensible discussion here on this very serious topic. Much has been discussed with respect to the difference between a cabin fire, which would primarily cause death through asphyxiation, and the structural fire, which would obviously cause death as a consequence of structural failure.

Irrespective of which type of uncontrollable fire that you face, history shows us that you have about 5 minutes to get the aircraft on the ground (or water), 10 minutes at the most.

One poster asked of the experiences of wartime crew, as a young F/O I flew with a great many ex Bomber Command Captains, and their universal consesnus was that with an uncontrollable fire, you have 5 minutes to get out. They could get out, we have to get down and get on.

As a young 'Sixties' F/O in Australia, our Ops Manuals all advised that in the event of uncontrollable fire, "Land at the nearest suitable airport". After the Ansett Winton disaster it was changed to "Land Immediately". As the years advanced, and people forgot the lessons of history, the words subtly changed back to a compromise, "Land as soon as possible". My own philosophy never changed, in the event of an UNCONTROLLABLE fire, I will land immediately.

To my mind, the only possibly survivable uncontrollable fire is for the pylon mounted engine, but, in the past, even those have burned back through the pylons into the wing structure. Does anyone have any manufacturer's information regarding the survivability of uncontrolled engine fires with pylon mounted engines on more modern aircraft such as the B747 and A340?

Regards,

Old Smokey