AirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
I think pilots will agree that if there is anything worse than an engine failure it's smoke/fire in the cockpit/cabin. How are pilots trained to deal with this? I was looking at the FAA incident reports and I found that smoke in cockpit is not that uncommon, not to mention Swissair 111.
Bri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
Any fire scares me a lot more than the engine conking out, and I only have one engine. After mucho practico, I'm highly confident I would walk away from an airplane that could be flown again if the rubber band up front broke. A fire isn't the same story.
In the 172, the procedure for smoke/fire in the cabin is to kill the source of the fire, then kill the fire's food. That is, turn off the master switch to kill all electrical power, then close all windows and vents to starve the fire of air. It says something about a fire extinguisher, but I've never flown a plane with one on board.
An engine (or fuel-related) fire is similar; kill the gas via the mixture control and fuel selector valve. This one has the side effect of shutting down the engine, so an emergency landing is in order. In either case, I'd be wanting to get on the ground ASAP.
It takes a lot longer to descend from 30,000 AGL than 3,000 AGL, so I'm curious to learn the different procedures for "big iron."
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 1): It takes a lot longer to descend from 30,000 AGL than 3,000 AGL, so I'm curious to learn the different procedures for "big iron."
Truly!! If you just sawed the power off to idle and descended normally it would likely take fifteen minutes or more. You might not want to take that much time.
There are three basic types of fire that could cause smoke in the cockpit. An ordinary trash fire in the lav or galley - least serious and will probably be fixed by dumping the coffee pot over it. Quicker and handier than the fire extinguisher and won't ground you at the next stop if a replacement cannot be found.
The next two are more serious:
Air conditioning smoke.
Electrical smoke.
They start with the same checklist and only diverge after saying:
LAND IMMEDIATELY
"Accomplish the following as time permits..."
I know of one 727 crew that actually declined clearances to descend and land until they'd run the entire checklist and stopped the smoke. Now I ask you; what are the odds you could, through random crew bidding, end up with THREE judgementally-challenged pilots on the same flight deck at the same time? Anyway the company amended the checklist immediately to include the warning above.
Wouldn't you rather let the airport fire department deal with the problem?
Air conditioning smoke usually means you are going to lose a pack.
Electrical smoke, if you were far out over the ocean involves a lengthy checklist where you isolate various segments of the electrical supply and distribution system in turn, waiting for the smoke to stop. Toward the end it gets pretty scary. Of course subsequent landing checklists would be different for each case. May you never find yourself out one of the branches of these checklists.
Several earlier jetliners like DC-9 or B-737 had the generator relays on the flight deck, behind the circuit breaker panels. So you have a cable as big as your thumb feeding 115 volt, 400 cycle three-phase AC electrical power in quantities sufficient for arc welding from each generator to a place just aft of your seat. I've had one of these relays cook itself, fortunately on the ground and we just taxiied back to the gate. Problem over. That smoke is really acrid and burns your eyes. About the second inhalation and you begin wondering what kind of carcinogens you are breathing.
Should also mention that these checklists will be run with oxygen mask and smoke goggles on. Not fun!
In general though, I'd agree with Bri2k1 that it is potentialy more serious than an engine failure. The Swissair 111 crash was one of the scariest events to come along during my career.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2540 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 2):
Wouldn't you rather let the airport fire department deal with the problem?
Exactly!
I had electrical smoke in the cockpit once after departure, about 7 or 8 miles away from the airport. I immediately turned back, advised tower I'd be making a straight-in approach, and asked them to roll the trucks.
I ended up beating the trucks to the runway, despite requesting them from 7-8 miles out and flying a 172. I was rather proud of my speedy return to the airport in that particular instance.
Oh, and ever since that day, I never leave the landing light on for visibility...only the lower-powered taxi light...
Pilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2498 posts, RR: 50 Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2512 times:
i remember watching the Swiss 111 documentary and they had evidence that the F/O was alive during the last 6 mins as the plane flew into the ocean...that really upset me big time, such a tragedy...
on the -400 you can smell something burning, and you always think it's a fire or something but it's the old school ovens right behind the panel area and everytime something is heated up i can kinda smell a burn like scent...makes me nervous
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
In the big iron, is there a maneuver like the "emergency descent" we have in GA? Flaps out and then spiral down at Vfe? I'm sure the pax wouldn't like the bank and the g load, but you do tend to come down in a hurry...
Of course, small planes are slow enough to -try- to land anywhere, not so sure you'd want to put an airliner down in a 1000' clearing in a forest. I suppose you could argue that it -might- beat the alternative.
September11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2400 times:
Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter): I think pilots will agree that if there is anything worse than an engine failure it's smoke/fire in the cockpit/cabin.
Think of the pilots on ValuJet 592 -- flight attendants and pilots reported smoke in the cabin around 15 minutes before nose dive took place. Pilots declared emergency landing, then smoke continued to expand in the cabin and unfortunately entered the cockpit before pilots could make it back to the airport.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 9, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 8): Isn't there a regulatory requirement for it.
For airliners, absolutely. Several of them and for all classes of fires. High pressure water and Halon are the common ones. There are also built-ins in the trash containers.
Quoting 3DPlanes (Reply 6): In the big iron, is there a maneuver like the "emergency descent" we have in GA? Flaps out and then spiral down at Vfe?
Yes, and every initial checkout includes this as a demonstated maneuver. Difference is that we will descend 'clean' because there is a mach limit on flap extension that is far more restrictive than IAS limitations. Normally we just have a highest altitude for flap extension.
Then there are two basic descent modes: Extend speed brakes and maintain MMO / VMO or, if structural damage is suspected, maintain existing speed or slower. There is more to it than that, but you get the idea. And we don't normally spiral but take vectors to the nearest suitable airport.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Bri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2290 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 8): Isn't there a regulatory requirement for it.
But obviously not for GA, which is what my comment was regarding. For a complex airplane under VFR Day conditions, a useful pneumonic is TOMATOFLAMES:
T - Tachometer
O - Oil pressure gauge
M - Manifold pressure gauge
A - Altimeter
T - Temperature gauge (for each liquid cooled engine)
O - Oil temperature gauge
F - Fuel gauge
L - Landing gear position indicator
A - Airspeed indicator
M - Magnetic direction indicator (compass)
E - ELT
S - Seatbelts
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days ago) and read 2221 times:
The answer for me is to know the procedures, and take advantage of the training you get. Make sure the O2 mask tests properly, and that O2 levels are adequate. Most electrical fires in their early stages will extinguish when power is removed.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3): Oh, and ever since that day, I never leave the landing light on for visibility...only the lower-powered taxi light...
Maybe on a 172(?)...but for an airliner, arbitrarily electing to avoid using something that is designed and certified for such use eventually means that one should avoid using just about everything, b/c all systems have failures. Lower wattage doesn't on a taxi light does not decrease the probability or intensity of an electrical short, and leaving the landing light on does increase the visability of a 172, day or night...
Yes, I should have specified. It was a 172R. I didn't mean to imply it pertained to anything else.
Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 14): Lower wattage doesn't on a taxi light does not decrease the probability or intensity of an electrical short
I find that surprising...can you elaborate? Not that I don't believe you, I'm just interested.
In my example, it was the switch/fusable link that failed. It was explained to me by an A&P (perhaps incorrectly) that the switches themselves should act as fuses if the temperature becomes too high. If this is incorrect, I'd love to hear a proper explanation.
Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 14): leaving the landing light on does increase the visability of a 172, day or night
No argument, but in terms of increasing one's visibility in a 172R, the landing light is not noticably more effective than the taxi light.
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
2H4, do some research on thermal CBs...what you will find is that, as the current Part 121 standard, they tend to be a particular with electrical fires in older a/c, in that very slight wire abrasions (occurring over a great length of time) eventually contact typically inert (ie, insulation) components. The amperage value is fairly low, but heat is adder to the insulation or surrounding materials, and then a fire occurs, and a CB never popped...until it gets hot, but then it's too late.
This concept is the basis behind the AD behind the 737 center fuel pump issue, btw...
Newer designs of CBs will trip off as a result of an instant current rise above a set value.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 17, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2179 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 16): The amperage value is fairly low, but heat is adder to the insulation or surrounding materials, and then a fire occurs, and a CB never popped...until it gets hot, but then it's too late.
Interesting...that sounds exactly like my experience in the 172. I checked the Information Manual, and it isn't at all detailed when it comes to circuit breakers...
Julianuk From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 105 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2100 times:
If you really want to know what happens in reality, then read this report about my friend's incident - we had a beer or two afterwards and he described it as "interesting" - but I know he was really quite concerned...as were the passengers who saw the smoke....
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2498 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 30 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, 
Hate to nitpick such a great thread (he lied) but it's spelled "mnemonic".
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
