cargo fire

[westinghouse]

hi all.

flying over the middle of somewhere the cargo smoke warning goes off on your A330. you right over head one airport while the the next one is abt an hour away.
after firing both bottles the warning disappears.

a. would you land asap and check the cargo hold?
b. since the warning has disappeared would you continue?

thanx

[Rainboe]

You bet your sweet life you land straight away! Think about it! You have had a fire warning, which apparently has been extinguished by the extinguishers (how do you know?). You would be demented to not land ASAP! Do you really think there is another answer?

[BOAC]

Taking you at 'face value', W, If you are a professional pilot or your work involves professional aviation please use this forum for questions. - follow the QRH/Emergency Check List. On the Boeing it is 'land at nearest suitable', so assuming the one under you is 'suitable'........................ I assume the AB is the same. You also have no idea what damage it has done, and no further hold fire protection.

[frogone]

A further question, if the cargo fire is extinguished, and you land at the nearest suitable airport, what's the general consensus on evacuating the aircraft?

Would you wait and deplane using steps or pop the slides??? Bearing in mind the Saudi L1011 and the fact that unnecessary evacuations can cause more injuries than they are worth...

IR

[BelArgUSA]

Irishover -
xxx
In the case of Saudia, I would like to mention this. A few months before the Riyadh L-1011 fire, there had been an incident with another SV L-1011 in Europe.
xxx
Apparently, a L-1011 was taxiing for takeoff, and started an engine, when some flames appeared in the exhaust. Flight attendant decided to evacuate passengers immediately (airplane slowly moving) and down escape slide(s). An airplane following the SV Tristar got on the radio, and called "Hey Saudia, you are losing your passengers"...
xxx
So the flight operations management issued a note to their flight attendants, to the effect of not evacuating unless ordered by the captain. In the Riyadh fire, looks like they complied with the new policy. They probably waited too long.
xxx
SOP and hard book policies are primordial with many airlines, rather than good sense adapted to circumstances. If you look at check-lists and procedures of XYZ Airlines, you will get the history and annals of that airline past accidents and incidents, the chief pilot's phobias and flying record.
xxx
If your airline dictates such policies, fry, medium rare to well done. Even though my airline belongs to the "third world", our cabin crews come equipped with brains and above average IQ...
xxx
:rolleyes:
Happy contrails

[Rainboe]

One of our 747s had a hold fire warning comingback to the UK from Barbados. They diverted about an hour to Santa Maria and landed in a full Atlantic gale, then evacuated. We were shown video of the Captain running around trying to herd the passengers in a driving wind and rain storm in his shirtsleeves!

Easy to say with hindsight, but I think I would brief the crew to call the flight deck at any sign of smoke or fire at any time, and to hold position after landing until a decision was taken. Evacuation is a traumatic event and should be avoided if possible- with a hold warning, there is a long history of false warnings, but you cannot rely on it being false!

The Saudia had another factor. I believe the fire services could not open the doors because of pressurisation. There were 20 or so bodies piled into the flight deck presumably trying to escape the cabin inferno- probably preventing any action by the Flight Engineer to depressurise. In the accident review, his behaviour attracted extraordinary criticism.

[BelArgUSA]

Rainboe -
xxx
Definitely correct - L-1011 evacuation prevented by pressure differential.
The "do not evacuate unless ordered by captain" may or may not have been a factor.
I once had a "cargo fire" in a DC8-63 cargo.
Was spontaneous combustion of wet leather shoes.
The incidence of fire false warnings in cargo compartment very high in 747s.
Would scratch my head to decide landing and evacuating or not.
William S. probably would say "to land or not to land, that is the question".
xxx
:8
Happy contrails

[None]

Perhaps this copy and paste from our on-line QRH might be of interest. If the cargo fire light goes out, I am not able to use that as a confirmation that the source of the smoke/fire is extinguished. I would imagine that some serious thought went into writing this paragraph.

Assessment
Once a fire or concentration of smoke/fumes is detected, continuing the flight to
the planned destination is not recommended unless the source of the
smoke/fire/fumes is positively identified and visually confirmed to be
extinguished and the smoke/fumes are decreasing. If initial identification /
elimination steps do not positively identify and remove the smoke/fire/fumes, a
diversion will be necessary.
"Visually confirmed to be extinguished" means that a crew member can physically
see the source of smoke and that it has been extinguished. An example would be
if a cabin crewmember visually identified smoke coming from an oven, and after
power was removed from the oven, visually can see that the smoke has stopped.
On the other hand, if the smoke stops after depowering a particular system (e.g.,
Recirculation Fan), the smoke/fire is not "positively identified and visually
confirmed to be extinguished", therefore a diversion will be necessary.