Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Airspeed777
Topic Author
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:54 am

In Flight Fire After V1

Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:54 pm

I’ve always wonder why would the FAA Certified Airplanes like the Airbus 318,319,320s without fuel dumps to operate in the US. I am sure some of you can remember a few years ago the incident with Jet Blue out of Burbank to JFK. The mega question here is what goes with an electrical in-flight fire after V1?
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13724
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:03 am

Doesn't the 737, including the NG models, also lack fuel dump devices? Aren't they a customer option for both A32x and 73H?
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
AirWillie6475
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:08 am



Quoting Airspeed777 (Thread starter):
I’ve always wonder why would the FAA Certified Airplanes like the Airbus 318,319,320s without fuel dumps to operate in the US. I am sure some of you can remember a few years ago the incident with Jet Blue out of Burbank to JFK. The mega question here is what goes with an electrical in-flight fire after V1?

There are many planes with no fuel dumping that operate in the U.S not just the airbus. As far as the mega question, it's very simple you land as soon as possible, you're not going to stay in the air when you're on fire.
 
drewwright
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue May 15, 2001 3:51 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:12 am

Fuel dumps aren't necessary. Aircraft can land overweight anytime, especially if we're talking about fire. After V1, the aircraft is committed to takeoff and can simply return for landing. In the case of a huge fire onboard, no pilot is going to wait to burn the fuel down to landing weight...they are going to get on the ground fast, regardless of weight! After the landing, the aircraft will undergo an inspection to make sure it wasn't damaged, and any necessary repairs would be done at that time.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:32 am



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1):
Doesn't the 737, including the NG models, also lack fuel dump devices? Aren't they a customer option for both A32x and 73H?

No current 737 has a fuel dump. As far as I know, it's not even an option since there is no need...the plane can safety land at maximum takeoff weight.

Fuel dumping isn't for fire safety, it's to get the landing weight down. If you don't have a weight restriction (as most smaller planes don't) then there's no value in the fuel dump system.

Tom.
 
avt007
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:51 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:19 am

I recall that the Canadian regs called for fuel dump systems only if the max takeoff weight exceeded the max landing weight by 5%.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:20 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Fuel dumping isn't for fire safety, it's to get the landing weight down.

With ever-increasing fuel prices, I predict the eventual discontinuation of fuel dump systems and the introduction of baggage dump systems...

 biggrin 

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2844
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:48 am

I really don't care how overweight the aircraft is. If it's on fire, I'm landing.
DMI
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:09 am



Quoting Airspeed777 (Thread starter):
The mega question here is what goes with an electrical in-flight fire after V1?

They would put the fire out...... they would land.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19940
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:41 am



Quoting Airspeed777 (Thread starter):
I’ve always wonder why would the FAA Certified Airplanes like the Airbus 318,319,320s without fuel dumps to operate in the US.

As mentioned, few narrowbodies nowadays have fuel dumping capability. It's just pointless extra weight. If you need to land, you land.

As Tdscanuck and others say rather well:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Fuel dumping isn't for fire safety, it's to get the landing weight down. If you don't have a weight restriction (as most smaller planes don't) then there's no value in the fuel dump system.



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 7):
I really don't care how overweight the aircraft is. If it's on fire, I'm landing.

I don't have to be a pilot to follow that logic. I'll even go one further and mention "Swissair Flight 111.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:33 pm

There are many Aircraft in commercial Aviation without the Fuel dump facility as they dont need it.
If the Emergency is critical,carry out an overweight landing rather that await fuel burn.Its the crew desicion.
An overweight Inspection can be carried out later by Mx.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
SNAFlyboy
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:42 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:56 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 6):
With ever-increasing fuel prices, I predict the eventual discontinuation of fuel dump systems and the introduction of baggage dump systems...

The graph of rising fuel prices must necessarily now be lower than that of "baggage-dumping compensation" prices... In the near future, these graphs will cross as fuel prices go up, and it will then become more economical for airlines to dump the passenger's baggage rather than dumping the fuel!

I knew I took these math classes for a reason Big grin

~SNAFlyboy
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:00 pm



Quoting SNAFlyboy (Reply 11):
The graph of rising fuel prices must necessarily now be lower than that of "baggage-dumping compensation" prices... In the near future, these graphs will cross as fuel prices go up, and it will then become more economical for airlines to dump the passenger's baggage rather than dumping the fuel!

Precisely my point!  yes 

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:15 pm

One may decide to dump fuel, even in a fire situation, for performance reasons. It does no good to land quickly if you cannot stop on the runway available. Also one must consider what type of fire it is. I would worry over a cargo fire much more than an engine fire.
Proud OOTSK member
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:54 pm

I remember we had a 767-300 devirt to Boston or lose of Hydro fluid in one system, the captain landed overweight to save fuel, since he had problems with one hydro system he one used one T/R to help slow the airplane, Was interesting seeing the brakes glowing cherry red after landing(and not melting the fuse plugs). Was clue since it was 0100 when he landed. I figured had would have had to dump about 75K dollars worth of fuel, and figured the overwieght inspection was cheaper.

We fixed him, inspected him and kicked him out in under 4 hours, which was still cheaper than the fuel he would have dumped.

David
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:27 pm



Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 14):
Was interesting seeing the brakes glowing cherry red after landing

How long was the runway?

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:47 pm



Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 14):
I figured had would have had to dump about 75K dollars worth of fuel, and figured the overwieght inspection was cheaper.

I have a problem with this reasoning. Picture yourself sitting across the table from your chief pilot, your POI, and any other inspector explain how after declaring an emergency, you decided to go for cost savings over safety. If an emergency is that cost prohibative, why not continue on to the destination, then? Either treat the situation like an emergency or don't. Don't engage in half measures.
Proud OOTSK member
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:51 am



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 15):
How long was the runway?

2H4

The runway was over 10000 feet, he had the right side hydraulic system off since he was losing hydraulic fluid, I was mistaken he did have both reversors, but only had a third of his spoilers since the right system was shut off, He had enough fuel for a trip over to CDG and he was heavy.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 16):
I have a problem with this reasoning. Picture yourself sitting across the table from your chief pilot, your POI, and any other inspector explain how after declaring an emergency, you decided to go for cost savings over safety. If an emergency is that cost prohibative, why not continue on to the destination, then? Either treat the situation like an emergency or don't. Don't engage in half measures.

I wasn't in the cockpit during the emergency. I don;t know what the pilot was thinking when he decided againist dumping fuel, The facts are as follows, he was flying MIA-CDG and around Gander he noticed he was losing fluid out of his right system hydraulics, He calls dispatch, they call us, he shows up, we talk to him and he explains the problems, he states he landed over weight due to not dumping fuel, we fix the problem , we inspect the airplane for the overwieght landing (nothing wrong), we do a ETOPS 1 inspection, he flys off into the darkness. We go back to our reversor change we are doing in the hanger The End.

The Pilot in Command desided he was fine to land in this configuration, his call not mine.

David
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
JRadier
Posts: 3957
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:52 am



Quoting Airspeed777 (Thread starter):
in-flight fire after V1?

Isn't every in-flight fire after V1?  Wink
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:22 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
I would worry over a cargo fire much more than an engine fire.

Why would that be.A fire has the same consequences in both cases.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:31 am



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 19):
Why would that be.A fire has the same consequences in both cases.

But engine fires are more predictable and controllable than cargo fires, are they not?

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:28 am



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 19):
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
I would worry over a cargo fire much more than an engine fire.

Why would that be.A fire has the same consequences in both cases.

It's relatively easy to isolate the supply of fuel to an engine fire, the engine has a substantial firewall, and the engine is designed to burn away before it compromises the wing structure.

If the extinguishers don't put out a cargo fire you're in a lot more trouble since you have no firewall, it's eventually going to compromise the structural integrity of the fuselage, and you can't get the fuel away from the fire. Letting an engine fire burn itself out is an option...letting a cargo fire burn itself out really isn't.

Tom.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 19):
Why would that be.A fire has the same consequences in both cases.

Others have beat me to it, but you have more protection from an engine fire than a cargo fire. After you shut off the fuel and hydraulic, the worst case scenerio is that the engine burns itself off the wing/pylon. A cargo fire can be much more insidious, depending on what you are carrying. Some of the stuff that is routine shipped can give off some pretty bad fumes when burned. On some aircraft, only fire detection is provided in the cargo compartments. The only protection is a crew member with a PBE and an fire extinguisher. UPS almost lost a couple of aircraft to cargo fires over the past few years.
Proud OOTSK member
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:41 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 20):
But engine fires are more predictable and controllable than cargo fires, are they not



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21):
It's relatively easy to isolate the supply of fuel to an engine fire, the engine has a substantial firewall, and the engine is designed to burn away before it compromises the wing structure.

you folks are probably right.I was looking at the Wing tank proximity to the Engine that the Cargo compartment.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 22):
UPS almost lost a couple of aircraft to cargo fires over the past few years.

Any details on what transpired.

regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
kstatepilot
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:23 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:23 pm



Quoting Avt007 (Reply 5):
I recall that the Canadian regs called for fuel dump systems only if the max takeoff weight exceeded the max landing weight by 5%.

I don't think that is correct, as the CRJ 200 has a max LDW of 47000, and MTOW of 53000, a difference of almost 12%, and no fuel dump

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21):

If the extinguishers don't put out a cargo fire you're in a lot more trouble since you have no firewall, it's eventually going to compromise the structural integrity of the fuselage, and you can't get the fuel away from the fire. Letting an engine fire burn itself out is an option...letting a cargo fire burn itself out really isn't.

I know the CRJ has a fire supression system in the cargo compartment that will release agents for 45 or 60 minutes depending on the aircraft. This means that we can only be 45 or 60 minutes away from a diversion airport if we have cargo. So I do not believe a cargo fire is a big worry.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:05 pm



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 23):
Any details on what transpired.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/ups.plane.fire/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/07/13/AR2006071301636.html

Here are a few stories on the latest one.

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 24):
So I do not believe a cargo fire is a big worry.

Perhaps not on the CRJ, but on other aircraft, especially in an all cargo configuration, it is.
Proud OOTSK member
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:18 pm



Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 24):
So I do not believe a cargo fire is a big worry.

[
Some folks have already posted links and I know a capt here that would disagree. The fire was a mis-labeled shipment (by the shipper) that was on the main deck. The chklist was done perfectly and they kept the fire suppressed at alt and made a rapid descent to a ldg. The fire then burnt the jet, DC-10, into.

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 24):
know the CRJ has a fire supression system in the cargo compartment that will release agents for 45 or 60 minutes depending on the aircraft.

I don't know a CRJ but the fire bottles in the belly compts on the MD-11 fire the agent completely in about 60 sec. All ventilation is stopped and 90 min later if there's still a fire indication you fire the second bottle.
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:38 pm



Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 24):
So I do not believe a cargo fire is a big worry.

Tell that to the ValuJet victims families.

David
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
avt007
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 4:51 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:49 am



Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 24):
Quoting Avt007 (Reply 5):
I recall that the Canadian regs called for fuel dump systems only if the max takeoff weight exceeded the max landing weight by 5%.

I don't think that is correct, as the CRJ 200 has a max LDW of 47000, and MTOW of 53000, a difference of almost 12%, and no fuel dump

The regs I am recalling (perhaps incorrectly) are from the late 80s, they may have been changed.

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 24):
know the CRJ has a fire suppression system in the cargo compartment that will release agents for 45 or 60 minutes depending on the aircraft. This means that we can only be 45 or 60 minutes away from a diversion airport if we have cargo. So I do not believe a cargo fire is a big worry.

The CRJ blows 2 bottles at once, one discharges right away, knocking down the fire. The other bottle fires at the same time, but empties it's contents through a restrictor, which is why it takes up to 60 minutes. The idea is to hopefully stop the fire from flaring up again.
 
kstatepilot
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:23 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:21 am

I guess I said that wrong, A cargo fire in the CRJ would not be a big of a problem as other situations that you can find yourself in....
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:35 am



Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 26):
90 min later

90 minutes? That seems like a LONG time to be staring at that fire warning light.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: In Flight Fire After V1

Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:27 pm



Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 30):
90 minutes? That seems like a LONG time to be staring at that fire warning light.

You don't have to stare at it. This is what happens
heat smoke or fire triggers alert and agent 1 discharge switch flashes...you push it. This is the big bottle. All ventilation is auto closed. 90 min later if any of the 3 properties still exist bottle 2 discharge switch begins to flash..if you're still in the air and most likely you aren't you push it. I don't recall there ever being one but I won't swear to it. Much more efficient than a main deck cargo fire.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

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