Any pilots' worse nightmare..

[ChasenSFO]

For those who don't think an off airport landing is a viable option for an airliner; the crew of TACA flight 110 deadsticked a 737-300, engines out, on a grass levee in Louisana in May 1988, coming to a safe stop with nothing more than minor injuries.

In a huge thunderstorm no less, and did such a steller job, the aircraft was flown away from the accident site back to MSY.

So pretty much it will take passenger deaths to get the feds to look at lithium batteries as a real problem?

Doesn't it alomost always to get the ball in motion? Sad, but usually true.

I wonder if the 80 miles less to Doha would have made a difference. If the F/O couldn't get low enough for the ILS after the 180 miles to DXB, perhaps setting up for an approach into DOH would have had similar results. Of course, we'll never know and its only speculation.

 

[SeanD]

As I said before too: get it on the ground, even if not an airport. In some situations, a landable surface will do, even off-airport. Better YOU put the airplane somewhere you can still control it, before IT puts you in a place out of your control.

For those who don't think an off airport landing is a viable option for an airliner; the crew of TACA flight 110 deadsticked a 737-300, engines out, on a grass levee in Louisana in May 1988, coming to a safe stop with nothing more than minor injuries.

View attachment 24842

I just watched an episode of Mayday that featured this accident. Its amazing they pulled that off. The captain only had one working eye. Thats determination and skill right there. I cant believed they swapped the motors and flew it out of there. I think that airplane is in the SWA fleet today.

 

[sweeps]

Wow that is terrifying. Makes me sick to my stomach. Poor guys...

 

[USMCmech]

For those who don't think an off airport landing is a viable option for an airliner; the crew of TACA flight 110 deadsticked a 737-300, engines out, on a grass levee in Louisana in May 1988, coming to a safe stop with nothing more than minor injuries.

View attachment 24842

That story is even crazier when you find out that they did an engine change and flew it out a few days later.

 

[z987k]

They aren't worth rest rules like the pax guys get; why would this be any different?

Would put the sarcasm tag here, but I sometimes wonder......

They do carry Li+ batteries on pax airplanes though. There's usually 1 per seat.

If they banned them on cargo flights wouldn't it be a little weird to allow them on pax flights?

 

[PositionAndHold]

They do carry Li+ batteries on pax airplanes though. There's usually 1 per seat.

If they banned them on cargo flights wouldn't it be a little weird to allow them on pax flights?

Yeah but those aren't stacked and palletized. If a thermal runaway happens it's very unlikely to cause a chain reaction like on a cargo load. I do think pax 121 ops should invest in some "fire bags" though. They're laptop sized fire proof bag that can safely contain a battery or other small fire. Some 91/135 corporate operators are starting to use them. I keep meaning to talk to the boss about getting a couple.

 

[Lucky8888]

Yeah but those aren't stacked and palletized. If a thermal runaway happens it's very unlikely to cause a chain reaction like on a cargo load. I do think pax 121 ops should invest in some "fire bags" though. They're laptop sized fire proof bag that can safely contain a battery or other small fire. Some 91/135 corporate operators are starting to use them. I keep meaning to talk to the boss about getting a couple.

We carry "fire bags" in our corporate aircraft. I seems like everybody these days complains of "hot" mobile phones. One never knows.

 

[z987k]

Yeah but those aren't stacked and palletized. If a thermal runaway happens it's very unlikely to cause a chain reaction like on a cargo load. I do think pax 121 ops should invest in some "fire bags" though. They're laptop sized fire proof bag that can safely contain a battery or other small fire. Some 91/135 corporate operators are starting to use them. I keep meaning to talk to the boss about getting a couple.

True, but the headline - FAA bans Li+ batteries on cargo airplanes but still allows them on pax flights probably wouldn't go over well.
Let's be honest, the things are hazmat and should have cargo aircraft only on them. At the same time, I and probably most people would be a touch upset if I couldn't take my phone and/or laptop with me on a flight, even in checked baggage.

 

[bLizZuE]

That was difficult to read.

 

[PositionAndHold]

True, but the headline - FAA bans Li+ batteries on cargo airplanes but still allows them on pax flights probably wouldn't go over well.
Let's be honest, the things are hazmat and should have cargo aircraft only on them. At the same time, I and probably most people would be a touch upset if I couldn't take my phone and/or laptop with me on a flight, even in checked baggage.

Oh I fully agree. I think there needs to be some new safe guards in place for future cargo loads. Like fire resistant cargo pods, better fire suppression within each pod etc.

 

[jynxyjoe]

They do carry Li+ batteries on pax airplanes though. There's usually 1 per seat.

If they banned them on cargo flights wouldn't it be a little weird to allow them on pax flights?

The one per seat you are talking about are ones that consumers have been using for a while and haven't gone to short. The ones a cargo vessel are stacked 64" to 128" and 88" wide by 125" long and can weigh about 8 metric tons easy (or about one American adult) and are fresh off the assembly line. MD-11 will carry 26 on maindeck and another 16 on the lower deck if I remember correctly. So there's no comparison.

Also, when- not if-, the pallet is damaged during buildup, transport to storage, storage, transport off storage, onto the FMC loader, onto the FMC lifter, into the airplane, scraped by the other pallets... sorry I lost track somewhere. The pallet will be damaged, and the loadmaster will say to himself, "Self, I've seen a LOT worse than that go on and make it all the way to Blank." And if the load master is REALLY concerned he'll ask the guy that will fire him in a heartbeat who will answer, "God dammit Ted I've seen a lot worse than this get shipped to Blank. If the FAA is here it's illegal, otherwise send the blanking pallet. I've got to get back to my airway bills I won't read and file. The FAA actually cares about the airway bills!"

 

[tomokc]

I wonder what the cargo shippers think about carrying Li+ batteries at sea. They're just as succesptible to thermal runaway, and losing one of these at sea with the commensurate loss of cargo would have the shipping industry rethink this practice.

Lose a 74 with crew of two? No big deal to them. But a huge container ship with all of its cargo, and stories from the two dozen surviving crew members plucked out of the water a few days later? The Li+ manufacturers would be forced to change packing procedures.

 

[Murdoughnut]

As I said before too: get it on the ground, even if not an airport. In some situations, a landable surface will do, even off-airport. Better YOU put the airplane somewhere you can still control it, before IT puts you in a place out of your control.

For those who don't think an off airport landing is a viable option for an airliner; the crew of TACA flight 110 deadsticked a 737-300, engines out, on a grass levee in Louisana in May 1988, coming to a safe stop with nothing more than minor injuries.

View attachment 24842

That's balla right there. Looked it up on Wiki ... apparently the CPT only had one eye due to being shot during Belize's civil war. Boeing replaced the engines and took off from an adjacent roadway. Crazy.

 

[mshunter]

Yeah but those aren't stacked and palletized. If a thermal runaway happens it's very unlikely to cause a chain reaction like on a cargo load. I do think pax 121 ops should invest in some "fire bags" though. They're laptop sized fire proof bag that can safely contain a battery or other small fire. Some 91/135 corporate operators are starting to use them. I keep meaning to talk to the boss about getting a couple.

Drink carts. It won't necessarily contain the smoke, but it will hold whatever is on fire until it can be put out/burns out.

 

[BobDDuck]

Drink carts. It won't necessarily contain the smoke, but it will hold whatever is on fire until it can be put out/burns out.

Having seen pictures of a cell phone battery burn through the flooring of a CRJ, I don't know that a drink cart would contain one.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Did you ever see the video of the laptop fire where they put it in the ice tray and covered it with ice? The ice insulated the device and allowed the temperature to INCREASE and reignite. Bad, bad news. I agree with fire bags.

 

[tomokc]

The ice goes on at 8:00, burns through the bottom at 8:30, and all but explodes at 9:00.

 

[mshunter]

Having seen pictures of a cell phone battery burn through the flooring of a CRJ, I don't know that a drink cart would contain one.

No fire bags on board so, you use what you got. Drink cart would be better than the floor. It might just buy you enough time to get on the ground and the people out.

 

[dasleben]

All we have for fire suppression on the freighter main deck is the ability to depressurize. Not so gravy for a Lithium battery fire. Boeing designed this thing before those batteries even existed, so there's not much you can do. Good times, good times.

 

[z987k]

All we have for fire suppression on the freighter main deck is the ability to depressurize. Not so gravy for a Lithium battery fire. Boeing designed this thing before those batteries even existed, so there's not much you can do. Good times, good times.

I googled around a bit for what happens during a fire, and apparently "When the batteries are overcharged, the cathodes tend to release oxygen gas". Also, the electrolyte is flammable. So we have a flammable self oxidizing cell when it overheats. Wonderful. Seems like all you can really do is wait for it to burn out.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/newsletter/nl27/eetd-nl27-4-safer.html