Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..  
User currently offlineRadelow From United States, joined Jul 2004, 426 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Looks like it turned out to be a false alarm but still... Cargo fire is a scary thing! Heck, any fire on a plane is a scary thing.

From the Glasgow Evening Times

Meanwhile, airline passengers were today involved in a mid-air fire scare when their London-bound aircraft developed problems over the Atlantic.
The Northwest DC 10 jet, with 280 people on board, was forced to divert to Prestwick Airport for a full emergency landing when smoke was detected in the hold.
Emergency services were put on alert at the Ayrshire airport around 8am when the captain decided to bring the aircraft into land.
The Northwest Airlines jet had set off from Minneapolis, Minnesota, bound for Gatwick and was heading over the Atlantic when a light came on the in the cockpit.
A spokesman for Prestwick Airport said: "The plane was diverted to Prestwick which has the capacity for a plane of that size to land.
"When it touched down on the tarmac it was discovered that there had been a false alarm.
"Passengers remained on the aircraft and, following checks, it flew off three hours later."
Strathclyde Fire Brigade sent four appliances to the scene and were on stand-by until the plane landed safely.

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN808NW From United States, joined Aug 2004, 367 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Dose any one know the aircraft reg. and where did you hear this. I checked NW's flight status and it dose say NW44 was diverted to Prestwick this morning...... and here comes the NW DC-10s are to old threads in..... 5...4...3...2...1.  Wink/being sarcastic

-Jason


All flights have great IFE...get yourself a window seat, thats something no PTV can beat! flew 808 Pacific an Atlanic
User currently offlineJasper711 From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

NW DC 10's are too old! I didn't want to disappoint you N808NW.

If they are certified to fly, are able to take off and land then let them fly. Whilst I personally avoid them wherever possible (my only experience on a DC 10 was awful) I am sure there are aircraft flying, cars that are being driven and shipping vessels carrying passengers that are in a lot worse shape than the NW DC-10's.



User currently offlineCospn From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1031 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

This shows the Usefullness of PIK for a Emergency landing with the massive traffic bound to the UK Europe

User currently offlineN229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1230 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1256 times:

Interesting...This hasn't showed up in the FAA sdrs yet, but I did notice that the same problem (false alarms in the cargo hold fire detectors) has occured twice, in May and June of this year, on two different NW DC-10s (N211NW and N243NW), and both times the flights were diverted (one to Iceland, one to Montana)...Maybe it's time they replaced all the fire detectors!


métro, boulot, dodo...
User currently offlineN229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1230 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

Interesting...This hasn't showed up in the FAA sdrs yet, but I did notice that the same problem (false alarms in the cargo hold fire detectors) has occured twice, in May and June of this year, on two different NW DC-10s (N211NW and N243NW), and both times the flights were diverted (one to Iceland, one to Montana)...Maybe it's time they replaced all the fire detectors!


métro, boulot, dodo...
User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1251 times:

My uncle fears and dislikes the DC-10 so much, you can't get him on one


Someone special in the air
User currently offlineN808NW From United States, joined Aug 2004, 367 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1208 times:

Yeah, OK, the DC-10s are old. Its just that their classics; a relic of the modern jet age revolution (about 1960-1970).

I would choose a NW A330 over a NW DC-10, if any of you were wondering about that.

Another thing about the DC-10 is that coincidently they've often been delayed due to mx problems when someone I know was on one; including today. NW55 AMS-MSP. "my mom's freind"

-Jason


All flights have great IFE...get yourself a window seat, thats something no PTV can beat! flew 808 Pacific an Atlanic
User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

Relics and classic are terrific things....

but I'll take a A330 with a side of modernness please


Someone special in the air
User currently offlineN229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1230 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1071 times:

No way, man! Don't get me wrong, nothing against new planes: the 777 especially is a beautiful bird, probably one of the most awesome planes ever built. But there's something noble about a machine that has been faithfully serving for so long, and I'd give up my personal video screen now and then for a chance to fly in one of these...

That said, I still think they might want to take a look at those smoke detectors on all their DC-10s before this happens again...


métro, boulot, dodo...
User currently offlineRadelow From United States, joined Jul 2004, 426 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1026 times:

Of all the classic's, the DC-10 is the one I dislike the most. In fact I am not a big fan of the MD-11 as well. 3 of my flights on DC-10's (which maybe numbers a total of 10-15 flights) resulted in delays because of aircraft problems. That does not necessarily reflect on the plane but it just gives me the willies. I basically will not, if I have the choice, fly on a DC-10 or MD-11. I don't find them particularly comfortable either.

Now the 737-200 or 727...Now those are some awesome planes to fly on.

Mark

User currently offlineN229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1230 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1019 times:

I've had great flights in DC-10s (which look fantastic in the NW bowling shoe livery), and never any mechanical problems, though it has been a while since I was on one (I think since AA stopped using them for coast-to-coast service). I always found them much more comfortable than L-1011's for some reason. I think it may be because back when I was taking L-1011s, it was usually TWA or Eastern, and both of those airlines (in _MY_ experience, I add, though I'll probably still get some angry comments about this) were not so hot. Seemed that 2/3 of all the long-haul TWA flights I took (and it used to be a lot) were delayed for mechanical problems, and with Eastern I think I took L-1011s about 3 times and (coincidence?) the lavatories were utterly disgusting each time: half of them out of order and the other half almost too smelly to use even right after takeoff...


métro, boulot, dodo...
User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States, joined Apr 2000, 2694 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 924 times:

Gimme a break people... the DC10 age and mx correlation is GETTING OLD!!! I just flew on a relatively NEW Delta 764 and we were almost 2 hours late because of a MECHANICAL problem. Should 764s flown by DL be considered old and unsafe now? Some of you need to do some research... several DC10s are the newest DC10s in the world, having been rolled off the line in the late 80s. That makes them NEWER than many 757s and 767s flying around.


AZJ

User currently offlineN808NW From United States, joined Aug 2004, 367 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 833 times:

Mx problems on new aircraft are usually creature comfort things, like a broken seat or TV malfunctions ect. On old planes it can be more of a serious malfunction, like problems with gauges, lights, aircraft systems, and even the engines.


All flights have great IFE...get yourself a window seat, thats something no PTV can beat! flew 808 Pacific an Atlanic
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From United States, joined Feb 2001, 18542 posts, RR: 79
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 808 times:

While this obviously is no ETOPS-certified aircraft...

...does anyone know if NW ops them with fire suppression in the cargo holds?


Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States, joined Apr 2000, 2694 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 806 times:

My delay was with an electrical problem. Hardly a creature comfort issue. I've had non creature comfort delay issues with new planes at NWA and other airlines. There very little merrit to old planes equaling more delays.



AZJ

User currently offlineWingnutMN From United States, joined Jan 2004, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 800 times:

I'm just curious about the number of people on board. That plane can only hold 268 people (I think). It must have been a full plane and crew maybe? that would get that number up over 280.

WingnutMN


Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States, joined Apr 2000, 2694 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 791 times:

The DC10s have 273 seats... so will full pax load and crew it will equal about 280.

It is a requirement for all A/C to have fire supression systems in the cargo bins. This is a result of the Valujet disaster in FL.



AZJ

User currently offlineN243NW From United States, joined Jul 2003, 968 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 723 times:

Interesting...This hasn't showed up in the FAA sdrs yet, but I did notice that the same problem (false alarms in the cargo hold fire detectors) has occured twice, in May and June of this year, on two different NW DC-10s (N211NW and N243NW), and both times the flights were diverted (one to Iceland, one to Montana)...Maybe it's time they replaced all the fire detectors!

Arrrrgggghhhhh! My baby's been having false alarms!  Sad Interesting...never heard about these two incidents before.

Any word on the reg? Hope it's not 1243 again!

BTW, nice screen name, N229NW! Welcome to the forums! Big thumbs up

-N243NW  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

[Edited 2004-09-10 05:02:53]


On the 7th day, God went on vacation. He flew a DC-9.
User currently offlineN229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1230 posts, RR: 35
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 633 times:

Thanks for the welcome, N243NW!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I still don't see an official report on this posted with a reg #... how long do things typically take to appear in the FAA data?


métro, boulot, dodo...
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States, joined Sep 2001, 2359 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 567 times:

I flew on 1242 last week, MEM-AMS.

No problems. Nice plane.

I'd fly the DC-10 again.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineSa365c1 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 519 times:

Hi

I work at Prestwick it taxied past me after it landed reg was N228NW

Regards

User currently offlineN229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1230 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 428 times:

Hi Sa265c1,

Thanks, but I am pretty sure that N228NW was retired and I think by now even scrapped! (Certainly the reg number is not active in the FAA data, and the aircraft was reregistered as N228PR for scrapping) Mystery...

[Edited 2004-09-11 06:22:27]


métro, boulot, dodo...