If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
outbreak of fire, control of fire, damage, aircraft interior
From the media
Fire in the air
Fire in the air is one of the most hazardous situations that a flight crew can be faced with. Without aggressive intervention by the flight crew, a fire on board an aircraft can lead to the catastrophic loss of that aircraft within a very short space of time. Once a fire has become established, it is unlikely that the crew will be able to extinguish it.
At the first indication, or suspicion, of smoke and fumes, or a fire within the aircraft, the flight crew should don smoke goggles and oxygen masks. Goggles and masks need to fit tightly and 100% Oxygen with overpressure selected to minimise any ingress of smoke and fumes into the mask.
Unless smoke and fumes are clearly present on the flight deck, the captain may elect, in order to maintain communication with the cabin crew, to delay fitting his own mask until the co-pilot has donned his protective equipment and is in a position to take control of the aircraft.
Smoke and fume / smell events – usually referred to as ‘cabin air contamination’ – have recently been highlighted as a potential threat to air safety and awareness of the inherent risk of such events has been growing. Studies and occurrence / accident reports have shown that such events could pose a threat to the safety of flight operations as well as to the health of cockpit / cabin crew and passengers. Reporting of such events is of great importance to gather reliable data on the phenomenon and hopefully reduce the risk of smoke and fume / smell events in the future.
Against this background ECA introduces guidelines on how to deal with fume / smell events. The aim is to ensure that such events are correctly recognized by air crew, are adequately dealt with during flight operations, and are followed-up upon, including through proper reporting to the company / authority. The primary aim of occurrence reporting in aviation is for organizational learning. By proper reporting, each crew member makes sure that operators manufacturers and authorities have access to the best available information from the flight and cabin crew. The ECA Task Group on Cabin Air Quality introduces these guidelines with the intention to give each ECA Member Association the opportunity to adapt them to their needs and local procedures and to thereby enhance the flight crews’ reporting of these events.
Whether in flight or on the ground, a fire is extremely hazardous and must be dealt with promptly. Pilots should give some thought of how they would handle a fire at particular times, such as on the ground, in flight near an airport or in flight over remote areas or the ocean. In recent years, Harry Bombardi and Gary Shirley of Delta Air Lines have shown that many fire procedures are basically wrong in shutting off the air supply to the cabin. They have shown that the best chance for survival is to maintain cabin airflow while de-pressurizing. This applies whether in the air or on the ground.There may be cases where a fire warning exists and there is no confirmation of a fire. This can be a particular problem for a warning of a fire in an engine which can not be observed by the flight crew. Depending upon other conditions, the flight crew will have to evaluate the risks involved in selecting the best course of action.
The 787 flight test program will remain suspended as Boeing works to understand the causes of an onboard electrical fire to aircraft ZA002 on Tuesday that led to a loss of primary electrical power (ATW Daily News, Nov. 10).
In an update released Wednesday, Boeing said that "backup systems, including the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine, functioned as expected and allowed the crew to complete a safe landing." According to the company, the pilots "at all times had positive control of the airplane and all of the information necessary to perform that safe landing."
Initial inspection appears to indicate that "a power control panel in the aft electronics bay will need to be replaced on the aircraft." Flight data has been retrieved and is being analyzed but "the process will take several days," Boeing said, adding that, "The team was conducting monitoring of the Nitrogen Generation System at the time of the incident but there is no reason to suspect that the monitoring or earlier testing of that system had anything to do with the incident."
Boeing said it "cannot determine the impact of this event on the overall program schedule until we have worked our way through the data. Teams have been working through the night and will continue to work until analysis is complete and a path forward is determined."
The manufacturer in August delayed the Dreamliner program for the seventh time when it pushed back first delivery to ANA to mid-first quarter 2011 (ATW Daily News, Aug. 27). It is unclear how this latest setback will affect the program.
Bernstein Research, which has accurately forecast previous delays in the 787 program, said that the incident is "serious" even if the other five flight test Dreamliners return to flying quickly. But it could be "much more serious" if the smoke was caused by an aircraft component/system that needs repairing. That "could significantly delay certification while a solution is developed," Bernstein warned.
WASHINGTON (AP) — American Airlines failed to catch mistakes by maintenance workers who didn't follow procedure before a September 2007 flight, causing the airplane's left engine to catch on fire during a departure climb from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, safety investigators concluded on Tuesday.
The findings by National Transportation Safety Board investigators come as the airline faces heightened scrutiny by the Federal Aviation Administration.
The agency recently assigned a special team of 17 inspectors to examine American's aircraft maintenance and other operations. The special audit is expected to take about three months.
On Tuesday, the NTSB conducted a hearing to investigate American Flight 1400 on Sept. 28, 2007, when an MD-82 engine caught on fire.
The airliner returned to the airport, but the plane's nose landing gear failed to extend during a landing attempt. A second landing attempt was successful. None of the 143 people onboard was injured, but the plane sustained substantial damage.
Investigators said the aircraft's left engine had repeated trouble starting beginning 10 days before the incident. Maintenance crews replaced a start valve in the engine six times during that period. On the day of the incident, the left engine again failed to start and had to be started manually by maintenance workers before Flight 1400 took off.
It turned out that mechanics failed to properly maintain a metal air filter that disintegrated, investigators said. The destruction of the filter led to a series of other mechanical problems, including a bent pin, which led to the valves being replaced and helped caused the engine fire.
American's maintenance oversight system failed to catch these repeated problem, investigators said.
When the fire occurred after takeoff, the flight crew also didn't follow emergency checklist procedures, investigators said. The co-pilot was engaged in trying to wrestle the cockpit door closed after the fire partially shutdown the aircraft's electrical system, which released the automatic door lock, they said.
"It seems to me it was a series of people taking short cuts that accumulated on this particular day into what could have been much more catastrophic," said safety board member Kitty Higgins.
Last month an American Airlines jet made an emergency landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York following an engine failure shortly after takeoff from nearby LaGuardia Airport. Pieces of one of the jet's two engines were found embedded in the fuselage, and other metal debris landed on the roof of a plumbing business.
Last August, FAA said it would fine American $7.1 million for continuing to fly airliners after safety problems were reported and for drug-testing violations. FAA said the Texas-based airline delayed repairs on two MD-80s — a midsized airliner — after problems were reported with their autopilot systems and flew them 58 times in violations of federal regulations. The airline is negotiating the fine with the agency.
HERE Airports, Airlines and Fire Departments may obtain Airplane Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) information for Boeing / McDonnell Douglas / Douglas Aircraft models including the following:
By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Oct 8th 2010 17:57Z, last updated Friday, Oct 8th 2010 18:11ZThe FAA have released their Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 10017 reporting the risks, that are involved while carrying lithium batteries in aircraft cargo.
The FAA reports, that lithium metal batteries are highly flammable and capable of ignition. Ignition can occur when batteries are being overcharged, short circuits, is exposed to heat, is being mishandled or is otherwise defective. Once a cell is induced into thermal runaway by internal failure or external means (like heating or physical damage), it generates sufficient heat to cause adjacent cell into thermal runway, too. The thermal runaway of a lithium metal cell creates an even more severe event than the thermal runaway of a lithium-ion cell because the lithium metall cell releases a flammable electrolyte mixed with molten lithium metal accompanied by a large pressure pulse. The combination of electrolyte and molten lithium metal can result in an explosive mixture.
On top of that the current fire suppression agent Halon 1301 found in class C cargo compartments is inefficient in controlling a lithium metal cell fire.
While the requirement is to LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, the crew need to do all that they can to aggressively locate the source of the fire and attack it using all available resources.
When the fire occurred after takeoff, the flight crew also didn't follow emergency checklist procedures, investigators said. The co-pilot was engaged in trying to wrestle the cockpit door closed after the fire partially shutdown the aircraft's electrical system, which released the automatic door lock, they said.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.