Fire warning light

[MikeD]

That being said, I fly one of those shiny RJ's and I can't see the engines on the airplane. I would level off at 1000' AGL, accelerate to VT, clean the airplane up, then begin a climb, and call for the QRH for an engine fire. I would ask for vectors back to the departure airport, if the weather is below CAT 1 minimums I would ask ATC to find me somewhere with good weather and point us in that direction while we work on putting out the fire. I don't care if it's just an indication, if the fire light is on I would hit the fire push and blow the bottle(s). The airplane will climb on one engine and they make airport specific engine out procedures for these situations. I wouldn't have any problem defending my decision if I blew a bottle into a perfectly good engine if I thought we were on fire.

Whether you can see the engine or not is only one part of the equation. "Visual Indications" are only one part of the 5-part FEVER test. I don't know if I'd shut down an engine based ONLY on a fire light with NO other indications of any kind. Does your checklist specifically say to? To me, creaing a self-made compounding emergency (fire light-only, and now added single engine) isn't that prudent. Why create an ACTUAL emergency (single-engine situation) out of a POSSIBLE emergency (fire light-only).

As I've mentioned before, a fire on an jet aircraft with pod-mounted engines isn't that critical of an emergency......as compared to a fighter with internal engines to where if you have a fire, your whole aircraft is on fire. So long as you can close the firewall shutoffs, it'll only burn out there. You obviously won't keep it running, but if you've shut it down but can't get the fire out, worst case it'll depart the airframe.

I think there is a need for immediate action items, but have a bazillion seems unnecessary. In a crew environment there's no need to start grabbing levers and pushing buttons before you assess the situation, this can cause bad things to happen. We're not single pilot and don't have bad guys on our tail, so our workload is considerably lower. Just as you train specifically for single pilot military/91/135 ops we train to operate effectively using 2 crewmembers.

What assessment have you done in your above example? Reading the bolded portion in your first paragraph that I highlighted, you assessed nothing......you simply reacted to a fire light that had no other supporting indications ("I don't care if it's just an indication"). Your non-assessment and onlty following the light indication contradicts what you wrote in the second paragraph and I bolded. And this had nothing to do with single-pilot or two crew. This is where airmanship and judgement need to be balanced with checklist discipline, and vice versa.

In the EP sections for all AF jets, there's a preface that says (paraphrasing) "....checklists are not replacements for good judgement and do not cover all situations. Perform only those steps necessary to take care of the situation at hand...." That preface is where the whole balance of airmanship vs checklist usage comes into play. We can't be checklist robots anymore than we can be cavalier about EPs. There has to be a balance.

Not bashing what you wrote, but it does create some good discussion points. That said, I agree with the other points you make. Reasonable and prudent.

 

[EDUC8-or]

Whether you can see the engine or not is only one part of the equation. "Visual Indications" are only one part of the 5-part FEVER test. I don't know if I'd shut down an engine based ONLY on a fire light with NO other indications of any kind. Does your checklist specifically say to? To me, creaing a self-made compounding emergency (fire light-only, and now added single engine) isn't that prudent. Why create an ACTUAL emergency (single-engine situation) out of a POSSIBLE emergency (fire light-only).

As I've mentioned before, a fire on an jet aircraft with pod-mounted engines isn't that critical of an emergency......as compared to a fighter with internal engines to where if you have a fire, your whole aircraft is on fire. So long as you can close the firewall shutoffs, it'll only burn out there. You obviously won't keep it running, but if you've shut it down but can't get the fire out, worst case it'll depart the airframe.



What assessment have you done in your above example? Reading the bolded portion in your first paragraph that I highlighted, you assessed nothing......you simply reacted to a fire light that had no other supporting indications ("I don't care if it's just an indication"). Your non-assessment and onlty following the light indication contradicts what you wrote in the second paragraph and I bolded. And this had nothing to do with single-pilot or two crew. This is where airmanship and judgement need to be balanced with checklist discipline, and vice versa.

In the EP sections for all AF jets, there's a preface that says (paraphrasing) "....checklists are not replacements for good judgement and do not cover all situations. Perform only those steps necessary to take care of the situation at hand...." That preface is where the whole balance of airmanship vs checklist usage comes into play. We can't be checklist robots anymore than we can be cavalier about EPs. There has to be a balance.

Not bashing what you wrote, but it does create some good discussion points. That said, I agree with the other points you make. Reasonable and prudent.

Didn't think you were bashing. I know in my post I addressed the OP's airplane and what I fly. We've got a dual loop system and the chances of the system seeing a fire on both loops (or short on one with fire on the other) are very minimal. A fire warning to me is an emergency, why take chances? If it is producing thrust use it while I'm climbing out, call for the QRH, and secure the engine. I have responsibility to my passengers, fellow crewmembers, and family, it would be much easier for me to defend my decision to shut down an engine that was potentially an indication problem VS letting it run with a fire warning and potential fire.

Also, while the chances of a catastrophic engine failure are minimal, letting a potential fire burn might aggravate the situation. I can think of one engine failure in my airplane that was not fire related where the crew had bleed air and hydraulic issues after securing the engine. Am I going to assess the situation if I have a fire warning? Absolutely. Has the engine failed, what's the ITT, did we have any vibrations, what's the fuel flow, did the tower or another airplane just call me and tell me I'm on fire, etc... are all factors I would take into account. I would shut down the engine regardless.

 

[RRPower]

Let's just all agree to disagree. The fact of the matter is depending on the type of flying you do you will do it different. Single pilot 91 guys may want to not shut it down for obvious reasons. There job and livelihood depend on the status of that airplane. Fighter guys want to do everything from memory and that is fine. They also have an ejection seat... You won't catch any 121 guy touching anything before reading a checklist. They, unlike 91 have the Feds breathing down their neck and anything done non SOP will have them sitting in court with the airline being sued by every family member on that plane. So you know what...if it says blow the bottle, then blow the bottle. Let maint figure out the rest. As was stated before, you can try and say it's poor aviation skills but if you happen to be wrong and you were outside SOPs then you can kiss your job and certificate goodbye.

 

[Hacker15e]

Fighter guys want to do everything from memory and that is fine. They also have an ejection seat

You say that as if it means a pointy-nosed guy takes a more cavalier attitude toward handling emergencies...as if they don't REALLY have to care about how things turn out, because if it gets REALLY bad, they can always just punch out.

I assure you, that's not the case at all, for a multitude of reasons.

 

[EDUC8-or]

Let's just all agree to disagree. The fact of the matter is depending on the type of flying you do you will do it different. Single pilot 91 guys may want to not shut it down for obvious reasons. There job and livelihood depend on the status of that airplane. Fighter guys want to do everything from memory and that is fine. They also have an ejection seat... You won't catch any 121 guy touching anything before reading a checklist. They, unlike 91 have the Feds breathing down their neck and anything done non SOP will have them sitting in court with the airline being sued by every family member on that plane. So you know what...if it says blow the bottle, then blow the bottle. Let maint figure out the rest. As was stated before, you can try and say it's poor aviation skills but if you happen to be wrong and you were outside SOPs then you can kiss your job and certificate goodbye.

This. In the 121 world we train in black and white but operate in grey. Even if you were fairly certain it wasn't an engine fire and decided to continue to fly without securing the engine the feds are not going to be happy.

 

[SteveC]

As an outsider to both the military and airline world, I'm going to go ahead and say that part of the difference is in the vetting and training processes that both camps go through. The military sets the bar very, very high, and in return expects their aviators, nay, trains them, to use that high level of training and competence to really evaluate situations, using checklists as one of their tools and not as a must-follow bible. The airlines, on the other hand, generally hire and train pilots to pass check rides and perform up to minimum acceptable standards. I daresay that, even though the military has its share of screw-ups, the spread from good to bad pilots is much tighter than in the 121 world. Therefore the typical 121 pilot is more of an unknown when it comes to high level emergency situation evaluation, and it is in the airlines interest to take some of the initiative away because the pilots may have a good chance to make things worse as opposed to making them better when going outside of checklist guidelines.

I'll understand if some take offense to my perspective.

 

[derg]

I think it all just "depends" on the situation.

Me? I'm going to assess the situation and land the aircraft.

Whether or not I shut the engine down immediately, well it depends.

I really don't want to fly around anyone's broken crap because there's no reason to take a flight that's not a matter of life or death and bring myself into a "life or death" situation.

 

[Ian_J]

My Operator's Manual pretty much echos a lot of the opinions here.

From the fire section:

The safety of helicopter occupants is the primary consideration when a fire occurs; therefore, it is imperative that every effort be made to extinguish the fire. ...

If the helicopter is airborne when a fire occurs, the most important single action that can be taken by the pilot is to land.

A warning in the engine fire EP:

Attempt to visually confirm fire before engine shutdown or discharging extinguishing agent.

And a forward at the beginning of the EP chapter:

The urgency of certain emergencies requires immediate and instinctive action by the pilot . The most important single consideration is helicopter control. All procedures are subordinate to this requirement.

 

[EDUC8-or]

As an outsider to both the military and airline world, I'm going to go ahead and say that part of the difference is in the vetting and training processes that both camps go through. The military sets the bar very, very high, and in return expects their aviators, nay, trains them, to use that high level of training and competence to really evaluate situations, using checklists as one of their tools and not as a must-follow bible. The airlines, on the other hand, generally hire and train pilots to pass check rides and perform up to minimum acceptable standards. I daresay that, even though the military has its share of screw-ups, the spread from good to bad pilots is much tighter than in the 121 world. Therefore the typical 121 pilot is more of an unknown when it comes to high level emergency situation evaluation, and it is in the airlines interest to take some of the initiative away because the pilots may have a good chance to make things worse as opposed to making them better when going outside of checklist guidelines.

I'll understand if some take offense to my perspective.

None taken, we're talking lowest common denominator here.

 

[MikeD]

You say that as if it means a pointy-nosed guy takes a more cavalier attitude toward handling emergencies...as if they don't REALLY have to care about how things turn out, because if it gets REALLY bad, they can always just punch out.

I assure you, that's not the case at all, for a multitude of reasons.

One big one being that we don't just eject and all's good. We're responsible for where that jet goes once we make the decision to leave it. That's one hell of a responsibility, believe me.

 

[MikeD]

.You won't catch any 121 guy touching anything before reading a checklist. They, unlike 91 have the Feds breathing down their neck and anything done non SOP will have them sitting in court with the airline being sued by every family member on that plane. So you know what...if it says blow the bottle, then blow the bottle. Let maint figure out the rest. As was stated before, you can try and say it's poor aviation skills but if you happen to be wrong and you were outside SOPs then you can kiss your job and certificate goodbye.

So are you admitting that a 121 guy will NOT use any sort of airmanship or judgement, and will robotically follow the checklist (due to being put in a position to do so for liability reasons)? If so, and if the feds are that way towards you guys, then the feds are really doing 121 crews a disservice IMO.

 

[dasleben]

So are you admitting that a 121 guy will NOT use any sort of airmanship or judgement, and will robotically follow the checklist (due to being put in a position to do so for liability reasons)? If so, and if the feds are that way towards you guys, then the feds are really doing 121 crews a disservice IMO.

That's not true; we're taught (and encouraged) to use systems knowledge and judgment before getting wrapped up in checklists. I've seen several sim scenarios that demonstrate this. One that I've personally seen on a training sim: You're established on an ILS with a motor shut down, and you get a cargo fire bell and message. Do you go around and run the checklist, or simply blow the fire bottles and land? If you do the former, you're going to get a slap in the back of the head from the instructor.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

That's not true; we're taught (and encouraged) to use systems knowledge and judgment before getting wrapped up in checklists. I've seen several sim scenarios that demonstrate this. One that I've personally seen on a training sim: You're established on an ILS with a motor shut down, and you get a cargo fire bell and message. Do you go around and run the checklist, or simply blow the fire bottles and land? If you do the former, you're going to get a slap in the back of the head from the instructor.

:yeahthat:

Aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order.

Also: airliners by and large have dual-loop fire detection systems. The odds of having both loops indicating a fire (usually a necessary condition for the fire warning bell/lights to come on) when there is no fire are pretty small, and there's a specific procedure for detector faults (one loop alarming, one loop normal) as well on some aircraft. If you have a fire warning, not just a detector fault, something's wrong.

 

[derg]

:yeahthat:

Aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order.

Hell yeah!

A few years ago in the simulator, I was a little cranky. A little because it was an early morning sim period, but the guy I was flying with was a "Brief-o-saurus" -- he would spend inordinate amounts of time, I felt, briefing and briefing and briefing to the point that even the simulator instructor said, "consider us briefed, you're coming off position freeze". There was more digging around the FOM, reading long paragraphs about minutia and just really wasting hands-on-yoke time with digging around manuals, charts, guides, personal notes.

Engine failure, complex departure and the other pilot instantly picks up the interphone to talk to the (simulated) flight attendants about going back to the airport. "I think we've had an engine failure. What we're going to do is make left or right traffic, then what I will do is call you back and tell you if we're able to get it secured and if we have to do an evacuation, I'm going to call and tell you how much time you're going to have to prepare. And then if..."

I said, "Hey! Do you mind? I could use some damned help."

He wasn't too thrilled about that but crap, if I drop a deuce on the secure procedure because I'm flying solo because homebrew decided to spend ten minutes talking to the flight attendants about potential evacuations and egress duties, they're going to be picking up little bits and pieces of body parts and twisted aluminum.

Fly the danged jet.

 

[Pilotforhire587]

That's not true; we're taught (and encouraged) to use systems knowledge and judgment before getting wrapped up in checklists. I've seen several sim scenarios that demonstrate this. One that I've personally seen on a training sim: You're established on an ILS with a motor shut down, and you get a cargo fire bell and message. Do you go around and run the checklist, or simply blow the fire bottles and land? If you do the former, you're going to get a slap in the back of the head from the instructor.

I agree, we are encouraged to know the systems and be able to make decisions, However, when you start to do something to fix a problem, unless its a memory item you had better pull out your checklist.

 

[MikeD]

That's not true; we're taught (and encouraged) to use systems knowledge and judgment before getting wrapped up in checklists. I've seen several sim scenarios that demonstrate this. One that I've personally seen on a training sim: You're established on an ILS with a motor shut down, and you get a cargo fire bell and message. Do you go around and run the checklist, or simply blow the fire bottles and land? If you do the former, you're going to get a slap in the back of the head from the instructor.

Appreciate the clarification, partner. Good deal. And btw, a great philosophical discussion here with alot of good points all around. This is the ultimate in good hangar talk.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

A few years ago in the simulator, I was a little cranky. A little because it was an early morning sim period, but the guy I was flying with was a "Brief-o-saurus" -- he would spend inordinate amounts of time, I felt, briefing and briefing and briefing to the point that even the simulator instructor said, "consider us briefed, you're coming off position freeze". There was more digging around the FOM, reading long paragraphs about minutia and just really wasting hands-on-yoke time with digging around manuals, charts, guides, personal notes.

Epic win. The real question is did you have any questions?

Engine failure, complex departure and the other pilot instantly picks up the interphone to talk to the (simulated) flight attendants about going back to the airport. "I think we've had an engine failure. What we're going to do is make left or right traffic, then what I will do is call you back and tell you if we're able to get it secured and if we have to do an evacuation, I'm going to call and tell you how much time you're going to have to prepare. And then if..."

If your instructor was really feeling his cheerios, he would have had your flight instrument power suddenly go away while the other guy was talking on the interphone.

I'm a complete bastard in this regard.

Fly the danged jet.

Repeat after me: "I have control and communications...ECAM actions!"

 

[dasleben]

Hell yeah!

A few years ago in the simulator, I was a little cranky. A little because it was an early morning sim period, but the guy I was flying with was a "Brief-o-saurus" -- he would spend inordinate amounts of time, I felt, briefing and briefing and briefing to the point that even the simulator instructor said, "consider us briefed, you're coming off position freeze". There was more digging around the FOM, reading long paragraphs about minutia and just really wasting hands-on-yoke time with digging around manuals, charts, guides, personal notes.

Engine failure, complex departure and the other pilot instantly picks up the interphone to talk to the (simulated) flight attendants about going back to the airport. "I think we've had an engine failure. What we're going to do is make left or right traffic, then what I will do is call you back and tell you if we're able to get it secured and if we have to do an evacuation, I'm going to call and tell you how much time you're going to have to prepare. And then if..."

I said, "Hey! Do you mind? I could use some damned help."

He wasn't too thrilled about that but crap, if I drop a deuce on the secure procedure because I'm flying solo because homebrew decided to spend ten minutes talking to the flight attendants about potential evacuations and egress duties, they're going to be picking up little bits and pieces of body parts and twisted aluminum.

Fly the danged jet.

Had a guy do that to me in the sim, too. Actually, we'd just leveled off at acceleration altitude and I was about to start calling for flap retraction.

"Oh, let me call the FAs and let them know what's going on."

Thankfully I was working on my type ride (and in the PIC role), so my response was more or less "No you're not. Flaps 5."

 

[derg]

Had a guy do that to me in the sim, too. Actually, we'd just leveled off at acceleration altitude and I was about to start calling for flap retraction.

"Oh, let me call the FAs and let them know what's going on."

Thankfully I was working on my type ride (and in the PIC role), so my response was more or less "No you're not. Flaps 5."

I'm all for communication, but planes crash when people stop flying the aircraft.

"Yup, 236 bodies found strewn across the hillside, but boy did skipper give a solid brief"

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Fire bottle is on my bucket list if I can blow it without losing my job even better! Kidding aside, we had a crew get a fire warning, in cruise with as i believe, no other indications initially. Turned out that the combustion liner had burned though, and they were venting 1500deg c gasses into the nacel. On our planes, everything is in there, landing gear, hyd systems, breakers, electrical contactors etc. We also have three seperate fire loops. The crew shut down the engine, blew the bottles, as they were doing it, they started to get secondary warnings, but, not engine indications. Wire harness were beeing melted etc, so they were losing indications on the ED. It also failed, or destroyed the fire loop, so with the sucessfull extinguishing of the fire, the fire warning remained illuminated, causing a planned, and safe evacuation.

We have so much other important stuff packed into the nacel out there, that our checklists don't even ask us to look for secondary indications. They expect us to shut it down. It's a what if scenario, but, i don't have any issues flying this plane on 1 engine... infact, I'm pretty sure I can fly it better on one engine than I can taxi it with only 1 good set of mainwheels.

I'm not saying "blindly" shut it down, but if it is SAFE, it will most likely always be in your best career interest to follow checklist/sop/fom guidance. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with taking a fire on short final to the ground before you deal with it. Our CFM/FOM has guidance to that effect, and the sim guys love it if you state," The airplane is controlable, i will deal with it on the ground" and land.

My departure brief covers items that we can start to run memory items on below 1000 feet. My brief always states, that unless That problem is going to make us not fly anymore, we're not going to rush into a checklist, and will take it up to 1000 clean up and deal iwith it. If our prop suddenly runs up to 11,000 rpms, and we start throwing blades off the hub, then yes im giong to shut it down right away, before we gernade the whole thing and possibly kill people in the plane. If it goes 80rpm over.. I'm not going to worry about it untill it's a better time to deal with the problem.