Swissair111.org    forums.swissair111.org    Discussion  Hop To Forum Categories  SR111 Messages    Officials eye aircraft fire procedures

Moderators: BF, Mark Fetherolf
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Officials eye aircraft fire procedures
 Login/Join
 
posted
Officials eye aircraft fire procedures



Washington, DC, Jun. 8 (UPI) -- Federal U.S. safety officials are concerned with slow progress in preventing and dealing with fires aboard an aging national fleet, USA Today said Tuesday.

More than 1,000 smoke or fire incidents on airline flights were reported to the Federal Aviation Administration in 1999, a study by the Air Line Pilots Association, the nation's largest pilots' union, showed. Of those, 359 prompted an unscheduled landing.

Two years ago, the National Transportation Safety Board issued several safety recommendations calling for improved firefighting training and equipment. As a result, earlier this year the FAA issued guidelines to airlines that call for better training and for flight crews.

But the FAA did not mandate the additional hands-on training the NTSB sought. Flight attendants must put out a real fire during their initial training but never have to do so again.

The NTSB wants attendants to perform periodic exercises that realistically train them how to find and put out hidden fires.

The worst fire-related crash was Swissair Flight 111, when the MD-11 jet crashed off Nova Scotia in 1998 after a blaze began above the ceiling. All 229 people on board were killed.


http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040608-080408-4204r.htm
 
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
From Aviation Monthly Safety and Summary Report

At the urging of the National Transportation Safety Board, the FAA has issued an Advisory circular (#120-80) dealing with in-flight fires. Although primarily directed at air carrier flightcrews, the FAA says all pilots should become familiar with it's contents. The FAA notes that time is critical when combating an in-flight fire, and says every available resource must be used to locate and extinguish the fire. The FAA cites data showing that only one-third of all aircraft with hidden fires will reach an airfield before the fire becomes uncontrollable. A smoke-filled cabin can be completely consumed in as little as 6 to 10 minutes. A fire aboard a Boeing 707 became non-survivable only 7 minutes after the flightcrew had a hidden fire. Other times from the first indication to non-survivability: DC-9, 19 minutes, B-474, 19 minutes, MD-11, 16 minutes.

The FAA identifies some possible indications of hidden fires as: abnormal operation of equipment or failures of disassociated components, multiple circuit breakers tripping, hot spots on the floor, sidewall, ceiling, or other panels; a strange odor; smoke coming from vents or seams.

The FAA suggests that crewmembers should be resourceful if available firefighting equipment has been depleted. For example, the FAA says, non-alcoholic beverages may be poured onto a fire. A carbonated beverage may be used as a fire extinguisher by shaking up the can or bottle, opening the top, and spraying the contents at the base of a fire. The FAA emphasizes that importance of an immediate descent and planning for an emergency landing. "Delaying descent by only a couple of minutes may make the difference between a successful landing and complete loss of the aircraft," the FAA says.


"They shall mount up with wings, as eagles." Isaiah 40:31
 
Posts: 26 | Location: Florence, SC | Registered: Mon April 29 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
David thanks for a very interesting article. Are you still flying? Good to see you around!

As far as what the FAA has to say, I'm wondering when they will take the TSB's recommendations seriously to remove any flammable materials from airplanes so it isn't necessary for pilots to ever be faced with a catastrophic fire.

Barbara
 
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BF:
David thanks for a very interesting article. Are you still flying? Good to see you around!

As far as what the FAA has to say, I'm wondering when they will take the TSB's recommendations seriously to remove any flammable materials from airplanes so it isn't necessary for pilots to ever be faced with a catastrophic fire.

Barbara


Hi, Barbara! Yes, I'm still flying. I'll be starting on my instrument rating very soon. I had started it a little over a year ago, but had to stop for several reasons. For one, I was looking at the possibility being ready to take the instrument checkride without having all of the required cross-country hours completed. So, not having unlimited financial resources, I decided to concentrate on building up cross-country hours. I now have the required cross-country hours (50) done, so I'm ready to start back with getting my instrument rating. Right now, the weather is being a bit problematic. We're getting thunderstorms in the area almost every afternoon. I got my ticket two years ago this month. As of now, I've got 130 total hours.

Regarding the article, it all seems to be pretty common sense stuff, and I can't help but wonder why the FAA has waited for so long to issue guidance on the subject. Although to tell you the truth, it really shouldn't even be necessary. I'm not sure which bothers me more, the fact that the FAA waited so long to issue the advisory, or the fact that it was necessary to begin with.

As long as airplanes are made by imperfect humans, fire will always be a possibility. Of the possible fire causes, electrical will probably always be the most likely, especially considering the complexity of the wiring in even a modern small, single-engine airplane, let alone a jetliner.

Given that, not having flammable material around for an electrical fire to spread to is obviously an important consideration, and I don't understand why the issue hasn't been given the consideration it deserves.

If memory serves, the FAA did issue a directive saying that mylar insulation had to be replaced, but they gave the airlines an awfully long time to do it. Is that correct?


"They shall mount up with wings, as eagles." Isaiah 40:31
 
Posts: 26 | Location: Florence, SC | Registered: Mon April 29 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
If memory serves, the FAA did issue a directive saying that mylar insulation had to be replaced, but they gave the airlines an awfully long time to do it. Is that correct?



That's exactly right David. They came up with a certain period airlines had to change these blankets to something less flammable and then proceeded to extend the deadline. There is an article somewhere on this site that says that replacements are not being done quickly enough.

Glad to hear that you are still enjoying flying. Good luck with your instruments rating!

Barbara
 
Posts: 2583 | Location: USA | Registered: Sun April 07 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Swissair111.org    forums.swissair111.org    Discussion  Hop To Forum Categories  SR111 Messages    Officials eye aircraft fire procedures

© YourCopy 2002