Delta 757 diverts Pasco for Cargo Overheat

Gonzo said:
The CRJ-700 has on bottle for both C3 and C4. Better hope you only get a fire in one.



Had nothing to do with fire and was an idiot CA, trying to make a point.
Click to expand...

I've talked with guys that say without additional indications, they won't divert for bag smoke.

I hope I never fly with one if those guys.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
"Land at the nearest suitable airport" is both an uncompromising instruction and appears with considerable regularity in the airplane's QRH with respect to most fires.
Click to expand...



What Rocketma99 said. The QRH doesn't do you any good when you're dead. Granted, it'd have to be a very in-extremis situation and it's a very out-of-the-box idea. But its better than being dead, and it's been done successfully before. It's just not something fixed-wing pilots think about. Always better to turn an extremely critical emergency like that into a ground emergency; and off-airport is just one card in your deck. It would be unwise to discard it because of fear of the unknown.

Define "suitable" for me. Query 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers.
 
Seggy said:
Sooooooo.......what is the story with that?
Click to expand...

Engine vibration so they did a inflight shutdown. CA and dispatcher got into a pissing match over ACARS on what was the "nearest suitable airport". CA put the airplane into a aggressive descent to land in Martinsburg WV a airport that we have no charts and zero airline service over any number of airports in the area with AMR service and we have chats for.
 
Gonzo said:
Engine vibration so they did a inflight shutdown. CA and dispatcher got into a pissing match over ACARS on what was the "nearest suitable airport". CA put the airplane into a aggressive descent to land in Martinsburg WV a airport that we have no charts and zero airline service over any number of airports in the area with AMR service and we have chats for.
Click to expand...

And was he sacked, or just re-educated?
 
MikeD said:
What Rocketma99 said. The QRH doesn't do you any good when you're dead. Granted, it'd have to be a very in-extremis situation and it's a very out-of-the-box idea. But its better than being dead, and it's been done successfully before. It's just not something fixed-wing pilots think about. Always better to turn an extremely critical emergency like that into a ground emergency; and off-airport is just one card in your deck. It would be unwise to discard it because of fear of the unknown.

Define "suitable" for me. Query 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers.
Click to expand...
Ah, of course. For me, it means the one with the long runway and big firetrucks.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Ah, of course. For me, it means the one with the long runway and big firetrucks.
Click to expand...
Eh, it's a Brasilia. Guy with a hose will suffice.

Trollface dance.gif
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Ah, of course. For me, it means the one with the long runway and big firetrucks.
Click to expand...

And thats cool, as it's kind of subjective when its not really defined. To others, it's X runway length minimum, or availability of maintenance, or whatever. My only point is, fire is nothing to screw around with when it involves the fuselage. MD-80? The engine is on a pod and will probably burn itself off if bad enough. Your Embraer? You get an uncontrollable engine fire on that wing mount, or a fuselage fire of some kind that you can't get out, and the suitable field.....by your own definition......is 15/20/30 minutes away; you going to still try and roll the dice to make that, with fire spreading to places you don't want it to? When you may possibly have a suitable landing site thats not an airport? I sure wouldn't. Turn that air emergency into a ground emergency. If you can land in one piece on a suitable road or something and evac, let the plane burn.

Look at the B-17 that landed in the field successfully after it's onboard fire, landed in one piece even. Your plane could do it too.

http://forums.jetcareers.com/thread...le-accident-1-year-later.147397/#post-1931527

And TACA 110, showing a transport category jet can do it too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

Is it the answer to any emergency? Of course not, it's very much the exception rather than the rule. But to dismiss it outright as a potential card you can play in an extreme emergency just because "...the QRH says suitable airport...", is one of those times where the checkilist, literal and verbatim, will get you killed. Serious food for thought.
 
MikeD said:
And thats cool, as it's kind of subjective when its not really defined. To others, it's X runway length minimum, or availability of maintenance, or whatever. My only point is, fire is nothing to screw around with when it involves the fuselage. MD-80? The engine is on a pod and will probably burn itself off if bad enough. Your Embraer? You get an uncontrollable engine fire on that wing mount, or a fuselage fire of some kind that you can't get out, and the suitable field.....by your own definition......is 15/20/30 minutes away; you going to still try and roll the dice to make that, with fire spreading to places you don't want it to? When you may possibly have a suitable landing site thats not an airport? I sure wouldn't. Turn that air emergency into a ground emergency. If you can land in one piece on a suitable road or something and evac, let the plane burn.

Look at the B-17 that landed in the field successfully after it's onboard fire, landed in one piece even. Your plane could do it too.

http://forums.jetcareers.com/thread...le-accident-1-year-later.147397/#post-1931527

And TACA 110, showing a transport category jet can do it too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

Is it the answer to any emergency? Of course not, it's very much the exception rather than the rule. But to dismiss it outright as a potential card you can play in an extreme emergency just because "...the QRH says suitable airport...", is one of those times where the checkilist, literal and verbatim, will get you killed. Serious food for thought.
Click to expand...
Rest assured, I'm onboard, and agree with you.

And now that I've straightened out fontconfig[1], I can put in some real ideas. Fortunately the only serious engine fire that I'm aware of at my employer was in the pipe zone and did burn itself out, but you're correct: anything that's wide enough, long enough, and flat enough, given a serious enough fire, is a suitable place to put the airplane and get the occupants out. The airplane's job is to protect the occupants; if you save the plane but not the people, that's useless.

My point is more that "overflying a suitable airport when the planned destination is 'only' a few minutes farther away is a bad idea when directed to land at the nearest suitable airport." Mission accomplishment isn't worth it in the airlines.

[1] Open source problems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top