UPS 747 Crash from 2010, Conclusion. Cause was Lithium Batteries

DE727UPS said:
I never thought of that. Seems like a cool idea. .
Click to expand...

It's in the same vein as, for example, the drop tanks on a pylon that you see in-between the engines on a C-130. Something externally carried that is jettisonable. That way, if there's a fire, the actual aircraft itself isn't on fire.
 
DE727UPS said:
It's a cool idea. Get the battery lobby to pay for it and I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

Im no engineer, but I figure it can be engineered. Other Boeing products like the B-52 use these racks with jettisonable stores. Granted, the -52 is a "high wing" jet, but I think something can be engineered for a 747 that's reasonable, affordable, and maintainable.
 
MikeD said:
Im no engineer, but I figure it can be engineered. Other Boeing products like the B-52 use these racks with jettisonable stores. Granted, the -52 is a "high wing" jet, but I think something can be engineered for a 747 that's reasonable, affordable, and maintainable.
Click to expand...

Where are you going to drop it?
 
Jimmy_Norton said:
Where are you going to drop it?
Click to expand...

Wherever you need to in an emergency, as consistent with minimal potential ground damage as reasonably possible. Because either that can be dropped by itself; or otherwise the whole entire aircraft (as well as the drop tanks) will be dropping from the sky to the earth shortly. Kind of a "pick your poison".
.
 
I used to be freight forwarder, and I regularly handled air shipments that contained lithium batteries. Believe me, it was a huge PITA. As for better labeling requirements, what more can be done? With our air waybill documentation package, we had to include a hazardous cargo declaration, as well as very specific information on the air waybill as to what was being shipped (how many haz and non-haz cartons). The cargo was also labeled with the appropriate hazardous material placards, UN IDs, and bright orange "cargo aircraft only" labels. All of the documentation and labeling requirements are set by IATA and must be adhered to exactly, otherwise the receiving warehouse won't even take the cargo off your truck. I had several shipments that got rejected by the carrier because the manufacturer made a tiny typo on their haz declaration. Also, these shipments were all export shipments, so manufacturing the batteries in-country wouldn't totally eliminate the need to ship them by air. Lithium batteries are one of many reasons why I'm glad I don't work freight anymore! And please forgive me if I'm spewing obvious information that you guys already know regarding labeling; I honestly don't know how much freighter pilots are required to know when it comes to labeling and paperwork stuff. Short of banning battery shipments or manufacturing batteries that don't burst into flames, the options are not that great.

As for a fire on a container ship, there's no way to dump containers even if the ship had a crane (and the big ships don't).
 

Attachments

  • containerfire.jpg
    containerfire.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 101
So, as a guy that sees quite a few pallets of 2500lbs+ of LiOn, this subject keeps me awake over the oceans thousands of miles from anywhere.

My wife knew the FO on the UPS jet fairly well too, so that brings it a bit closer to home as well.

I've kicked pallets off due to damages boxes with LiOn. I had high hopes for this new UPS-designed & tested ULD. However, like @DE727 said, as long as we only kill 3-4 at a time (Don't forget Asiana lost a 744 freighter MONTHS after UPS for the same reason.). We won't see progress, much like the part 117 carve out.

Just like I'm safe to fly a 747 over YOUR house with a rest cycle that flies in the face of science a day after I flew a 747 over your house with the new rest rules, LiOn is not required to be labeled as Haz even though approximately ONE HULL LOSS OCCURS EVERY TEN MONTHS.

[sarcasm]At least LiOn fires are self-oxidizing. [/sarcasm]
 
DE727UPS said:
There is a lot of money to be made with sticking to the status quo. See the cargo cutout. We are just pawns in a big corporate game of stock value and quarterly earnings. The li-on battery lobby is very powerful and challenges every finding with respect to safety.

As posted above, some measures are being taken, but we still have to carry the damn things for now. I think I know what will happen to the first Capt that refuses the cargo...
Click to expand...
I understand that, but losing a 747 full of stuff can't be good for business.

Do they audit li-on packages at all? See if they are packed properly and such? That is what I am getting at. No matter what cargo aircraft will carry these things unfortunately. It will take a passenger aircraft to crash before anything is done.
 
Just make sure during the evac, that you aren't hanging around in the smoke in the doorway tossing crew bags down to the ramp before evac'ing yourself.....
 
Polar742 said:
So, as a guy that sees quite a few pallets of 2500lbs+ of LiOn, this subject keeps me awake over the oceans thousands of miles from anywhere.

My wife knew the FO on the UPS jet fairly well too, so that brings it a bit closer to home as well.

I've kicked pallets off due to damages boxes with LiOn. I had high hopes for this new UPS-designed & tested ULD. However, like @DE727 said, as long as we only kill 3-4 at a time (Don't forget Asiana lost a 744 freighter MONTHS after UPS for the same reason.). We won't see progress, much like the part 117 carve out.

Just like I'm safe to fly a 747 over YOUR house with a rest cycle that flies in the face of science a day after I flew a 747 over your house with the new rest rules, LiOn is not required to be labeled as Haz even though approximately ONE HULL LOSS OCCURS EVERY TEN MONTHS.

[sarcasm]At least LiOn fires are self-oxidizing. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
In the people-hauling business, we've known that oxygen starvation is not a guaranteed firefighting strategy if the cargo brings its own oxygen for some time now.

And since I live underneath the National Airspace System and share it with freight haulers, ONE LEVEL OF SAFETY please!
 
From the accident report, discussing the design of the Boeing checklist:

In many current non alerted SFF checklists, guidance to complete a diversion and/or emergency landing
is given as one of the last steps, if it is given at all, and the guidance to complete such a diversion is only
pertinent if efforts to extinguish the SFF were unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

Uhm, does anyone not know that smoke or fire that doesn't go out right away is a "Land immediately at the nearest suitable airport" kind of emergency? :confused:
 
Autothrust Blue said:
From the accident report, discussing the design of the Boeing checklist:



Uhm, does anyone not know that smoke or fire that doesn't go out right away is a "Land immediately at the nearest suitable airport" kind of emergency? :confused:
Click to expand...

And if bad enough and depending where you are, it may be a land on any suitable surface emergency, airport or not....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top