Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:23 pm

A SQ A A330 flying from Singapore to Dhaka with 117 passengers was enroute at FL350 southwest of Bangkok when the crew received a cargo fire indication, activated the cargo fire suppression system and diverted to Bangkok.
The aircraft landed safely on Bangkok, after opening the aft cargo door a plume of smoke became visible, fire services sprayed the cargo bay and needed more than 2 hours to control the situation. No injuries, damage to the aircraft is being assessed.

Article with Pics Here :
http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4613943a&opt=0


Thank God they had a a nearby ariport to divert quickly.


Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
anstar
Posts: 3324
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:31 pm

Glad the aircraft landed ok!
 
falkerker
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:53 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:36 pm

Excellent news no one was harmed.

From a theoretical standpoint, what if they were 150min from the closest airport??
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:39 pm



That's a big plume of smoke. Good that they made it down in one piece.

[Edited 2013-04-23 14:29:58]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:24 pm

Quoting falkerker (Reply 2):
From a theoretical standpoint, what if they were 150min from the closest airport??

Probably the smoke would start to fill in the cabin and you could have some panicked passengers, definitely a bad situation.... now, if we are more dramatic with the speculation, this could end like SAA 295. Every case is different. I would LOVE to see what the cargo manifest says in this case ( and what was actually in the aircraft ).

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27452
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:43 pm

Quoting falkerker (Reply 2):
From a theoretical standpoint, what if they were 150min from the closest airport?

ETOPS regulations require that the plane contain sufficient Halon 1301 fire suppressant aboard to maintain a minimum 3% concentration in the hold for the entire diversion time. There are also means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or suppression agent from any compartment occupied by the crew or passengers.
 
peterjohns
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:49 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:05 pm

Luckily they could land after 20min- which still is a amount of time considering your on fire!!
Would be very interesting to know a) did the fire extinguisher work and solve the problem?
b) What actually did catch fire? - would they have been able to fly another hour or two???
Of course Batteries are the obvious culprit, I just received some Model RC Batteries with the Post from HKG which were not declared as " dangerous" goods..
Neither are the hundreds of cell phones and Tablet PC´s , Computers and so on that everyone carries along on every flight. Each has a battery.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15695
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:31 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):

Would you be so kind as to quote your source of this information.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27452
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:29 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 7):
Would you be so kind as to quote your source of this information.

I first found http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...rticles/qtr_2_07/article_02_3.html

Quote:
Cargo fire suppression. To further ensure safety, new regulation 14 CFR 121.633 requires that all time-limited ETOPS significant systems aboard airplanes flying ETOPS shall have sufficient capability to protect the airplane throughout the longest potential diversion for that route. In particular, each flight shall have continuous cargo fire suppression capability for a period equivalent to the maximum planned diversion time plus an additional 15 minutes.

ETOPS twinjets have been required since 1985 to carry sufficient fire suppressant to protect the airplane continuously throughout a maximum-duration diversion. In contrast, although all jetliners have cargo fire suppression systems, airplanes with more than two engines have not previously had to meet this requirement that further protects passengers, crews, and airplanes on extended air routes.


I then looked up 14 CFR 121.633 - Considering time-limited systems in planning ETOPS alternates at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.633

Quote:
Considering time-limited systems in planning ETOPS alternates.
(a) For ETOPS up to and including 180 minutes, no person may list an airport as an ETOPS Alternate Airport in a dispatch or flight release if the time needed to fly to that airport (at the approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air) would exceed the approved time for the airplane's most limiting ETOPS Significant System (including the airplane's most limiting fire suppression system time for those cargo and baggage compartments required by regulation to have fire-suppression systems) minus 15 minutes.
(b) For ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, no person may list an airport as an ETOPS Alternate Airport in a dispatch or flight release if the time needed to fly to that airport:
(1) at the all engine operating cruise speed, corrected for wind and temperature, exceeds the airplane's most limiting fire suppression system time minus 15 minutes for those cargo and baggage compartments required by regulation to have fire suppression systems (except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section), or
(2) at the one-engine-inoperative cruise speed, corrected for wind and temperature, exceeds the airplane's most limiting ETOPS Significant System time (other than the airplane's most limiting fire suppression system time minus 15 minutes for those cargo and baggage compartments required by regulation to have fire-suppression systems).
(c) For turbine-engine powered airplanes with more than two engines, the certificate holder need not meet paragraph (b)(1) of this section until February 15, 2013.



Next up was http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q2/3/, which explains how Boeing Commercial Airliners handle cargo fire suppression and noted the 5% and 3% figures for Halon 1301 as well as noting there are means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or suppression agent from any compartment occupied by the crew or passengers.


However, since this was an A330, I also reviewed the FIRE PROTECTION - CARGO COMPARTMENTS section of the FCOM which noted that Bottle 1 discharges agent into the compartment within 60 seconds and that Bottle 2 comprises a flow metering system to slowly discharge into the compartment so as to ensure sufficient agent concentration for 120 minutes (this FCOM is for training only).

[Edited 2013-04-23 16:53:12]
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8880
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:17 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 4):
Probably the smoke would start to fill in the cabin and you could have some panicked passengers, definitely a bad situation...

Naive at best. If the fire won't go out, you have only a few minutes before the aircraft is unflyable, unsurvivable. Look, if the fire is being fed by a flammable / self-sustaining source (batteries), Halon won't help. BA's flight manuals state, based on a lot of research of accidents like SR111, ValuJet et al - if the fire isn't out in fifteen minutes, it isn't going out. After that, you will lose the aircraft in just eleven more minutes, so you land. It does not state that it must be on a runway. Thank god that scenario hasn't come about on a passenger plane, although it was certainly demonstrated by the UPS and Asiana 747F crashes we have seen in the last couple of years.

Fire in the air is a sure-fire killer and you don't fly around trying to put it out or getting below your max landing weight or waiting to cross the coastline before you start a fuel dump. You land, or ditch, or put it down in a field or a desert or a forest or wherever you are and hope for the best. Which will be better than staying in the air.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:03 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 9):
Naive at best. If the fire won't go out, you have only a few minutes before the aircraft is unflyable, unsurvivable. Look, if the fire is being fed by a flammable / self-sustaining source (batteries), Halon won't help. BA's flight manuals state, based on a lot of research of accidents like SR111, ValuJet et al - if the fire isn't out in fifteen minutes, it isn't going out. After that, you will lose the aircraft in just eleven more minutes, so you land. It does not state that it must be on a runway. Thank god that scenario hasn't come about on a passenger plane, although it was certainly demonstrated by the UPS and Asiana 747F crashes we have seen in the last couple of years.

Fire in the air is a sure-fire killer and you don't fly around trying to put it out or getting below your max landing weight or waiting to cross the coastline before you start a fuel dump. You land, or ditch, or put it down in a field or a desert or a forest or wherever you are and hope for the best. Which will be better than staying in the air.

I had ( and still have ) the same impression. Fire or smoke = LAND ASAP.
The airticle describes the situation in this SQ A330 with the following :
"During the descent towards Bangkok a burning smell developed on board of the aircraft. The aircraft landed safely on Bangkok's runway 19R about 20 minutes later. "

Burning smell is smoke in a low concentration, but if you don't land ASAP ( this crew did it in 20 minutes ) probably the concentration will rise exponentialy over time ( specially in a confined space like an aircraft cabin ).

On the other hand, the information provided by Stitch is apparently pointing towards the opposite and the aircraft should be capable of keeping a "breathable" environment and its integrity for the whole time of the ETOPS certification....
   
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15695
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

Thanks, we (as a community) should give due credit to the original source when posting others work.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:21 am

Quoting falkerker (Reply 2):
From a theoretical standpoint, what if they were 150min from the closest airport??

As Gonzalo noted, we could very possibly have been reading about another SAA 295.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:23 am

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 6):
Of course Batteries are the obvious culprit, I just received some Model RC Batteries with the Post from HKG which were not declared as " dangerous" goods..
Neither are the hundreds of cell phones and Tablet PC´s , Computers and so on that everyone carries along on every flight. Each has a battery.

My first thought. When checking in now, I am asked if I have any batteries in my checked in luggage. What happens if I just say 'no'?
 
SEA
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:21 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:12 am

Very glad the flight was able to land safely. 113 people for an A333 is very light!
 
lutfi
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:24 am

Singapore to Dhaka will have lots of traders on board. I remember watching a Bangladeshi trader at Kai Tak have to show that a whole suitcase full of cigarette lighters were empty... i.e. click each one to show no lighter fuid inside.

So my speculation is passenger baggage, not cargo.
 
timpdx
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:54 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:33 am

just out of curiosity, if fire is indicated and smoke is present, will the pilot try to stay at altitude as long as possible before rapidly descending near the targeted diversion airport? the idea being to stay in oxygen starved altitudes as long as possible before descending into thicker air?
Flown 2018: LAX, ARN, DXB, ALA, TAS, UCG, ASB, MYP, GYD, TBS, KUT, BER, TLS, SVO, CCF, DUB, LGW, MEX, BUR, PDX, ORD, SLC, SNA
Upcoming 2018: STL, MIA, BZE, IAH, BHM, LHR, DFW, PHX
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:34 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):

That is a disturbing picture, thanks for posting! Glad they made to the airport safely.

This is was also reminiscent of the 787 fire pictures. Lithium battery troubles have spread on to the A330?   
 
AR385
Posts: 6936
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:38 am

Quoting timpdx (Reply 16):
the idea being to stay in oxygen starved altitudes as long as possible before descending into thicker air?

What good would that do? The fire (and the oxygen) are INSIDE the aircraft. You may depressurize it, but then if the cargo fire is in the hold I´m not sure that would do much good. Also, the oxygen from the passengers masks can make the situation much worse.
 
User avatar
pilotanthony
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:52 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:19 am

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 17):
This is was also reminiscent of the 787 fire pictures. Lithium battery troubles have spread on to the A330?

I don't think the A330 has Lithium-ion batteries installed lol
Anthony Paraschou
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:46 am

Quoting pilotanthony (Reply 19):
I don't think the A330 has Lithium-ion batteries installed lol

... except in the cargo, luggage, etc.
 
bthebest
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:35 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:54 am

Are there any cargo hold ventilation systems for events like this? Or is it just a case of containing it?
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:06 pm

Quoting falkerker (Reply 2):
From a theoretical standpoint, what if they were 150min from the closest airport??

Depends entirely on SQ's configuration. The KLM A330 FCOM gives me 240min of extinguishing capabilities.

Pressing the AGENT pushbutton associated to the FWD (AFT / BULK) compartment ignites the squib of the two bottles and the bottle 1 discharges extinguishing agent into that compartment, which takes about 60 seconds. The discharge cartridge of bottle 2 comprises a flow metering system, and so fire extinguishing agent is discharged slowly into the compartment to ensure sufficient agent concentration for 240 minutes.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 9):
SR111 .. UPS6 .. OZ991

To be completely fair the SR111 crew probably had insufficient access to the source of the fire to effectively combat it while the fires on UPS6 & OZ991 started on the maindeck where no fire supressions systems were in place. It makes for a bit of a different situation when compared to this one.
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:14 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 9):
Look, if the fire is being fed by a flammable / self-sustaining source (batteries), Halon won't help.

I disagree that halon won't help the situation. Will it extinguish the source of a self propagating fire, such as one caused by lithium batteries? No. Therefore it is not the perfect solution. But will it suppress and extinguish the surrounding packaging made up of class A material which causes dense dark smoke, and therefore slow the possibility of the fire spreading to other containers? Yes. Even if it only gives the crew a few additional minutes, it has been proven a few minutes makes the difference between life and death.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 9):
accidents like SR111, ValuJet et al
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 9):
Thank god that scenario hasn't come about on a passenger plane

???

Quoting timpdx (Reply 16):
just out of curiosity, if fire is indicated and smoke is present, will the pilot try to stay at altitude as long as possible before rapidly descending near the targeted diversion airport? the idea being to stay in oxygen starved altitudes as long as possible before descending into thicker air?

25,000', if the diversion airport is not immediate.

Two things are at issue here. Starving the fire of oxygen by depressurizing the aircraft, and how long can a human body remain active at high altitude for long periods, even when on supplemental oxygen. While supplemental oxygen provides O2 for breathing, remaining at very high altitudes for extended periods will take a toll on the rest of the human body. If a long way from the diversion airport, the manufactures have determined that a descent to 25,000' is a good compromise between starving the fire of oxygen while lessening the toll on the human body.

This is reflected in the manufactures' emergency procedures.
FLYi
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:09 pm

Quoting PITrules (Reply 23):
I disagree that halon won't help the situation. Will it extinguish the source of a self propagating fire, such as one caused by lithium batteries? No. Therefore it is not the perfect solution. But will it suppress and extinguish the surrounding packaging made up of class A material which causes dense dark smoke, and therefore slow the possibility of the fire spreading to other containers? Yes. Even if it only gives the crew a few additional minutes, it has been proven a few minutes makes the difference between life and death.

Yes - that is correct. It can keep the fire from spreading beyond initial ignition point - or at least limit the spread. If the source is something that provides energy, like battery, that battery will exhaust it's capacity and fuel and go out. If you can prevent spread long enough for that to happen, then the continuous protection will be effective. For a battery or few in a suitcase, that is probably going to work. For a pallet of batteries - probably not. If it is a Lithium fire (from a Lithium battery, not a LiIon battery), then Halon is not very effective - but again - it may prevent spread long enough for the battery to burn out. For LiIon batteries, it is effective, but will probably re-kindle if the Halon stopped. 3% may not be high enough either.

In any case, the problem for the crew is a very hard one to manage. The guidelines for a fire are indeed "Land ASAP". That is not quite the same as "try to crash in a controlled way ASAP". It implies landing at an airport, not in a field.

So - in an ETOPs flight over the ocean - what do you do? Do you "ditch ASAP" as some have suggested. Ditching a 330 (or any commercial jetliner) in the ocean is not something that is likely to have a high survival rate. One of the reasons for the good outcome of Cactus 1549 was the location - a river (smooth compared to the ocean) literally surrounded by boats who could rescue. Not the case in the Pacific or Atlantic. Making that decision means making the decision some will likely die. Or do you divert and trust the containment system to hold the fire long enough. And how do you make that decision?

If you have a smoldering fire, effective smoke exhaustion and limited spread, then you probably head for the nearest diversion post haste. If it is spreading, you may take the ditch route. The problem is you may have, at any time, only minutes to decide. Also - the fire can go from smoldering to really bad - really fast. For instance, if the hull is breached any any way - and it is not hard to imagine that - the fire becomes wind driven and any Halon system will be rapidly rendered useless. At that point, you may not have the time for a controlled descent and ditching.

This is pretty much a nightmare scenario for the crew and passengers and why so much effort was put into redesigning the containment system for the 787. While many believe the existing system on the 787 would have provided this level of protection, the new system is the belt and suspenders and twine approach. And - please - do not turn this into a 787 forum - there are other places for that.
rcair1
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:18 pm

Quoting lutfi,reply=15
[quote=rcair1
(Reply 24):
If you have a smoldering fire, effective smoke exhaustion and limited spread, then you probably head for the nearest diversion post haste. If it is spreading, you may take the ditch route. The problem is you may have, at any time, only minutes to decide. Also - the fire can go from smoldering to really bad - really fast.

The other issue that probably would worry me in a situation like this ( over the ocean ), is the chance of the intense heat / fire damaging electrical or hyd systems, that could compromise the effective control of the aircraft. A "controlled" ditching is not the best scenario of course, but is much much better than spinning down from FL 250, out of control until you hit the water.

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
celestar
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 11:37 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:29 pm

I could be wrong, isn't this incident could have been similar to the fire that brought down the Asiana freighter on-route to Shanghai and crashed near Jeju island. That was a B747-400F, some sort of fire on its cargo bay I think.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:45 pm

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 13):
When checking in now, I am asked if I have any batteries in my checked in luggage.

Now?...I was asked that when checking in for a CX LGW-HKG flight.. answering in the affirmative I was asked to open my luggage and remove the batteries from any devices in my checked bags prior to check in.
That was in December 1989!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!....well that might have changed!!!
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:48 pm

Just glad this wasn't the same as Saudia where it landed with everyone alive but they all died.

 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:52 pm

just an uninformed question, but could you snuff out the flames by climbing?
 
jayunited
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:47 pm

Quoting tockeyhockey (Reply 29):
just an uninformed question, but could you snuff out the flames by climbing?

The fire was not outside the aircraft it was inside the cargo compartment which is pressurized climbing to a higher altitude will not do you any good and it would be devastating on the human body especially if the pilots have to depressurize the cabin in order to starve the fire of oxygen.
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2388
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:57 pm

Great job by the crew - we done indeed. It's hard to tell from the pic, but I wonder how much of the "smoke" visible was the remaining halon agent being time released in the cargo hold.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:10 pm

Quoting barney captain (Reply 32):
I wonder how much of the "smoke" visible was the remaining halon agent being time released in the cargo hold.

Not sure what are your talking here... Halon ( CBrF3 ) is a colorless gas, is not "visible". You "detect" high contentrations of Halon when you start to feel dizzy after some minutes of exposure ( above 7 or 8 % you could start to feel the effects ).

In any case, Halon is an "old formula", not very friendly with the environment, and AFAIK there are other similar options available for the same work. Does anybody knows if the aircraft industry is effectively using Halon this days ? Or are they using other similar - but "greener" - stuff already ?

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:11 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 28):
Just glad this wasn't the same as Saudia where it landed with everyone alive but they all died.

Or the AC DC-9 that made an emergency landing at CVG en route from DFW to YYZ on June 2, 1983 with a fire in a rear lavatory. Landed with everyone alive but 23 of the 46 aboard died before they could evacuate. AC;s last fatal accident.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NH0udSYnYnw/T5-Hskt2YxI/AAAAAAAALrI/xuApNWANuEs/s1600/AIR+CANADA+FLIGHT+797.jpg

http://thenetletter.org/images/1248/c-ftlu-fire.jpg

http://thenetletter.org/images/1248/c-ftlu-fire-1.jpg
 
Wisdom
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:43 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 31):
Quoting tockeyhockey (Reply 29):
just an uninformed question, but could you snuff out the flames by climbing?

The fire was not outside the aircraft it was inside the cargo compartment which is pressurized climbing to a higher altitude will not do you any good and it would be devastating on the human body especially if the pilots have to depressurize the cabin in order to starve the fire of oxygen.

You still have the oxygen masks.
You keep alittude or climb, drop the oxygen masks for the passengers after suggesting that passengers wear any coats they have handy and that 2 rows share bottles and activate them one after the other is empty, to achieve twice the oxygen time and better efficiency, while leaking less oxygen into the cabin. Then you depressurise the cabin.
The O2 concentration will still be the same, but the lower partial pressure of oxygen (-75%) due to overall lower pressure can achieve excellent results. This should be equivalent to a 75% reduction of oxygen concentrations from 21% to around 5%.
When you depressurise, the cabin temperature will start to drop to below zero as the AC system can not maintain the temperature. The cooling effect can help extinguish the fire.

If it happens on a ETOPS flight over cold ocean I'm on, and hours away from an an alternate, without any signs of containment, you'll find me in the cargo bay with one of those ead-covering portable O2 unit and a pair of oven mitts, crawling through the side walls and unlatching containers to dump them into the sea with a little help from the flight deck (pitch & roll). It beats ditching into a cold sea.

[Edited 2013-04-24 16:52:59]
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:26 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 25):
The other issue that probably would worry me in a situation like this ( over the ocean ), is the chance of the intense heat / fire damaging electrical or hyd systems, that could compromise the effective control of the aircraft. A "controlled" ditching is not the best scenario of course, but is much much better than spinning down from FL 250, out of control until you hit the water.

This is what I mean about the situation can change rapidly. You can think it is controlled, then find it is destroying your ability to control the a/c. You are right to be worried.

Quoting celestar (Reply 26):
I could be wrong, isn't this incident could have been similar to the fire that brought down the Asiana freighter on-route to Shanghai and crashed near Jeju island. That was a B747-400F, some sort of fire on its cargo bay I think.

Multiple differences. Primarily- that aircraft was cargo without the extinguishment systems on the main deck. This one- the fire was in the cargo compartment which has the extinguisher. There are many who believe freighters should have extinguishing capability in the main cabin - however the 'risk management' says the number of lives at risk is small.

Quoting tockeyhockey (Reply 29):
just an uninformed question, but could you snuff out the flames by climbing?

Only if you depressurized which has it own problems

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 35):
You keep altitude or climb, drop the oxygen masks for the passengers after suggesting that passengers wear any coats they have handy and that 2 rows share bottles and activate them one after the other is empty, to achieve twice the oxygen time and better efficiency, while leaking less oxygen into the cabin. Then you depressurise the cabin.

Yeah - right - Good luck with that bud.. Most often the passengers do not even pay atten enough to don the masks. You are asking them to buddy breathe with some fellow passenger they have never seen, with no training and no prep - then throw in hypoxia confusing things. Not realistic or practical.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 35):
If it happens on a ETOPS flight over cold ocean I'm on, and hours away from an an alternate, without any signs of containment, you'll find me in the cargo bay with one of those ead-covering portable O2 unit and a pair of oven miys, crawling through the side walls and dumping containers. It beats ditching into a cold sea.

Yeah right - and I carry my PPE (bunker gear) and SCBA with me on every cross ocean flight so I can help you. Making entry to a compartment fire with one of those masks and your oven mitts - even if you can access it (which you probably can't) is just a complex form of suicide.

This is one of those cases where fire prevention is better than fire response.
rcair1
 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:58 am

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 35):
If it happens on a ETOPS flight over cold ocean I'm on, and hours away from an an alternate, without any signs of containment, you'll find me in the cargo bay with one of those ead-covering portable O2 unit and a pair of oven mitts, crawling through the side walls and unlatching containers to dump them into the sea with a little help from the flight deck (pitch & roll). It beats ditching into a cold sea.

Wisdom, with all due respect, I think you have seen the movie Air Force One too many times....       ... But I admire your enthusiasm !!! At least you will not die without giving a fight !!!

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2388
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:01 am

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 36):
Yeah - right - Good luck with that bud.. Most often the passengers do not even pay atten enough to don the masks. You are asking them to buddy breathe with some fellow passenger they have never seen, with no training and no prep - then throw in hypoxia confusing things. Not realistic or practical.

Agreed. Fairly preposterous for all the reasons stated and at least a few more.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 36):
Yeah right - and I carry my PPE (bunker gear) and SCBA with me on every cross ocean flight so I can help you. Making entry to a compartment fire with one of those masks and your oven mitts - even if you can access it (which you probably can't) is just a complex form of suicide.

This is one of those cases where fire prevention is better than fire response.

Again, agreed. Even at a diminished O2 concentration, the absolute worst thing you would want to do is attempt to breach a Class C or D cargo compartment.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:14 am

On early spacecraft, depressurizing the cabin was the first and only means of fighting a fire. That was part of the problem with Apollo 1 -- on the ground, they couldn't dump the cabin and so they had no onboard means of fire fighting.
 
User avatar
a36001
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:47 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:41 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 38):

Me too.... I actually thought it was pretty funny...... O2 masks and oven mitts.....hahahaha got a genuine laugh out of me well done sir  
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:14 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 33):
In any case, Halon is an "old formula", not very friendly with the environment, and AFAIK there are other similar options available for the same work. Does anybody knows if the aircraft industry is effectively using Halon this days ? Or are they using other similar - but "greener" - stuff already ?.

I believe the civil aviation industry is one of the few that has exemptions to use Halon. Some useful links.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q4/3/
http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/npa/2011/NPA%202011-14.pdf

A quick skim of these relatively recent articles appears to indicate that searching for and testing a suitable replacement are ongoing.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:24 am

I know that the original Eclipse Aviation folks were pushing PBr3 as a Halon replacement (using the name PhostrEx, and I guess there still is a Phostrex.com out there). The PBr3 stuff looked plausible when I last looked at it, but that was when I was following Eclipse, which was some years back. I guess PhostrEx is not the slam-dunk that Eclipse wanted it to be, or we'd be seeing it approved already as a Halon replacement???
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
Wisdom
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:43 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:10 am

Quoting tonystan (Reply 37):

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 36):

Hahahaha......that whole post has me wetting myself!!!!
Quoting rcair1 (Reply 36):
Yeah right - and I carry my PPE (bunker gear) and SCBA with me on every cross ocean flight so I can help you. Making entry to a compartment fire with one of those masks and your oven mitts - even if you can access it (which you probably can't) is just a complex form of suicide.

This is one of those cases where fire prevention is better than fire response.
Quoting barney captain (Reply 39):

Again, agreed. Even at a diminished O2 concentration, the absolute worst thing you would want to do is attempt to breach a Class C or D cargo compartment.

Well you preposterous posters can wait neatly in your chair until the thing goes down. Procedure at any airline now is to fight fire very aggressively if containment isn't possible. I've worked in A330's and I have a good idea of how to get the cargo unlatched and doors opened even if the compartment is fully loaded, all that while gaining access from the cabin and through the blow-out panels.
You probably don't know what it's like to have a fire on-board. I have experienced a electrical fire on the ground and the level of stress and urgency is nothing like any other fire you would have in a house or a building.

Fire prevention, containment and extinguishing is not effective, despite all the halon and the ETOPS certification standards. The halon only extinguishes where it can replace the oxygen to break the triangle of fire, but the aircraft's own ventilation system disperses the halon so quickly that it's inadequate to fight fires in containers in the first place.
As for halon preventing the fire from advancing from container to container, that's an urban myth. Halon blocks the oxygen but nothing stops the heat.

The fumes released contain CO and in combination with on-board electric systems, including the detection system's own loops, form the perfect cocktail mix for a massive expansion of the fire. Passengers masks can't prevent inhalation of CO fumes, so any oxygen would do no good if you let it go that far.

You don't need your bunker suits, cabin crews have full-head oxygen masks (smoke hoods) at their disposal exactly for the purpose of fighting fires. http://cabincrewsafety.com/stock/images/82000011.jpg

[Edited 2013-04-25 01:17:36]
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:16 am

This is amazing!
They were very lucky. Who knows how much time they had before the fire would consume the entire aircraft and thus crashing and killing everyone.
Glad they were able to land safe here in Bangkok and have a happy ending.
The ending could have been worse.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2388
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:16 am

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
I've worked in A330's and I have a good idea of how to get the cargo unlatched and doors opened even if the compartment is fully loaded, all that while gaining access from the cabin and through the blow-out panels.

Thereby effectively negating the O2 separation and fire containment of the Class C/D cargo hold = flashover. Bad idea, regardless of what your wisdom pontificates.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
You probably don't know what it's like to have a fire on-board. I have experienced a electrical fire on the ground

Ah yea, I have. But mine were airborne, not parked comfortably at the gate. Two legitimate fires indications and one false. All requiring some fairly quick action.

But please Oh Wise One, continue to enlighten us who are merely;

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
preposterous posters

  
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15695
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:49 am

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 22):
240 minutes

280 minutes depending on the book you are reading.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 23):
This is reflected in the manufactures' emergency procedures.

Not Airbus.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 25):
The other issue that probably would worry me in a situation like this ( over the ocean ), is the chance of the intense heat / fire damaging electrical or hyd systems, that could compromise the effective control of the aircraft. A "controlled" ditching is not the best scenario of course, but is much much better than spinning down from FL 250, out of control until you hit the water.

Critical controls have redundant paths.

Quoting celestar (Reply 26):

I could be wrong, isn't this incident could have been similar to the fire that brought down the Asiana freighter on-route to Shanghai and crashed near Jeju island. That was a B747-400F, some sort of fire on its cargo bay I think.

I think that was a main deck fire, where having extinguishing agents on the main deck is only a relatively new consideration by manufacturers and operators. The types of cargo carried on cargo only aircraft is also different to passenger aircraft.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 44):
Well you preposterous posters can wait neatly in your chair until the thing goes down. Procedure at any airline now is to fight fire very aggressively if containment isn't possible. I've worked in A330's and I have a good idea of how to get the cargo unlatched and doors opened even if the compartment is fully loaded, all that while gaining access from the cabin and through the blow-out panels.
You probably don't know what it's like to have a fire on-board. I have experienced a electrical fire on the ground and the level of stress and urgency is nothing like any other fire you would have in a house or a building.

Fire prevention, containment and extinguishing is not effective, despite all the halon and the ETOPS certification standards. The halon only extinguishes where it can replace the oxygen to break the triangle of fire, but the aircraft's own ventilation system disperses the halon so quickly that it's inadequate to fight fires in containers in the first place.
As for halon preventing the fire from advancing from container to container, that's an urban myth. Halon blocks the oxygen but nothing stops the heat.

The fumes released contain CO and in combination with on-board electric systems, including the detection system's own loops, form the perfect cocktail mix for a massive expansion of the fire. Passengers masks can't prevent inhalation of CO fumes, so any oxygen would do no good if you let it go that far.

You don't need your bunker suits, cabin crews have full-head oxygen masks (smoke hoods) at their disposal exactly for the purpose of fighting fires. http://cabincrewsafety.com/stock/ima...1.jpg

Your post in reply 35 and this reply 44 in my view is very poor, verging on dangerous advice.

Crews already have published procedures for handling cargo and electrical fires. We do not open contained areas in flight to fight a fire, if the fire continues due to chemical nature of the cargo, there is nothing carried on the aircraft that will extinguish such a fire. We also do not turn a commercial flights into some "Die Hard" squeal test flight with you being John McClane crawling through the aircraft and opening cargo doors and unloading cargo in flight with an outside temperature of -40 deg C and no pressure oxygen. And yes, you can sit in your seat and not panic as I would have directed, it is my aircraft, and it is not a democracy. I would have no problem authorizing a person with such irrational behavior from being physically restrained, yet another published procedure.

The initial risk factor for the crew and passengers is smoke, time is something we do not have. The distribution of wet towels is the normal procedure we would use in the cabin. The air in the cabin should remain relatively smoke free, as airflow tends to go from the cabin to the cargo area. We would apply the appropriated checklists and divert to the nearest airport, or nearest suitable (subtle difference), and would consider a controlled off airport landing if conditions in the cabin became worse regardless where we are. People will survive is the aircraft is put down in a controlled fashion before the smoke gets to them.

Flying around Asia we get a number of false cargo warnings each year, turtles and some fruit from the region are well known for causing false fire warnings, so is condensation on the optical sensors.

For the record, I am current on type.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 45):
Glad they were able to land safe here in Bangkok and have a happy ending.

I am sure you mean happy landing as well  
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:51 am

Turtles??? Sorry, I just had to ask.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15695
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:36 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 49):
Turtles??? Sorry, I just had to ask.

Yep, people eat them, we also carry live food like fish, crayfish etc.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Focker
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:37 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:41 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
Not Airbus.

Would be interesting to know what the procedure is on an Airbus.

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
Crews already have published procedures for handling cargo and electrical fires. We do not open contained areas in flight to fight a fire, if the fire continues due to chemical nature of the cargo, there is nothing carried on the aircraft that will extinguish such a fire. We also do not turn a commercial flights into some "Die Hard" squeal test flight with you being John McClane crawling through the aircraft and opening cargo doors and unloading cargo in flight with an outside temperature of -40 deg C and no pressure oxygen. And yes, you can sit in your seat and not panic as I would have directed, it is my aircraft, and it is not a democracy. I would have no problem authorizing a person with such irrational behavior from being physically restrained, yet another published procedure.

That was a good laugh! 
Quoting zeke (Reply 50):
Yep, people eat them, we also carry live food like fish, crayfish etc.

But why would it make the fire alarm go off?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15695
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cargo Fire On Board SQ A 330, Diverted To BKK

Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:51 am

Quoting Focker (Reply 51):
Would be interesting to know what the procedure is on an Airbus.

I would suggest you have a look then at www.smartcockpit.com you will find a lot of the Airbus training material there.

Quoting Focker (Reply 51):
But why would it make the fire alarm go off?

If you are interested in the details, this FAST magazine goes into great detail on the subject and solutions to fix it. The main reason is the amount of condensation produced on the detectors.

http://www.airbus.com/support/public...?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=18325
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos