radelow
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:07 am

NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:52 am

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.
 
N808NW
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:03 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:15 am

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
 
Jasper711
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:31 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:02 pm

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.

 
COSPN
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:33 pm

This shows the Usefullness of PIK for a Emergency landing with the massive traffic bound to the UK Europe
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: NW DC10 In Amsterdam

Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:05 am

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!
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire...

Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:07 am

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!
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:07 am

My uncle fears and dislikes the DC-10 so much, you can't get him on one
Someone special in the air
 
N808NW
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:03 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:54 am

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
 
BIGBlack
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:00 am

Relics and classic are terrific things....

but I'll take a A330 with a side of modernness please
Someone special in the air
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:16 pm

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...
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
radelow
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:07 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:01 pm

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 avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:16 pm

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...
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
azjubilee
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2000 5:26 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:56 am

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
 
N808NW
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:03 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:51 am

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
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:07 am

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!
 
azjubilee
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2000 5:26 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:08 am

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
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:10 am

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!!
 
azjubilee
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2000 5:26 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:15 am

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
 
N243NW
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:02 pm

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]
B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:57 am

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?
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:34 am

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.
 
SA365C1
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 1:39 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:09 am

Hi

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

Regards
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:20 pm

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]
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
SA365C1
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 1:39 am

RE: NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire..

Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:54 pm

sorry that was a typo meant to say N238NW

Regards