CX diversion due Fire Warning.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I go, therefore I am there!
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by arse; 10th May 2013 at 08:20.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YVR
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turns out CX sent a rescue 777 to pick up the passengers and continue on to ORD. The incident aircraft is still on the ground in YWG as far as I know.
Cathay Pacific (CX) #3332 Flight Tracker ? FlightAware
Cathay Pacific (CX) #3332 Flight Tracker ? FlightAware
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 48
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like they learned their lessons after the previous fire warning a year or so ago...
Glad to see everyone is safely on the ground.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally, if it's a real fire and you're not on the ground in 18 minutes, you're dead.
It seems too common that either it's not a real fire (so landing at the nearest suitable airport wouldn't have changed anything) or that it IS a real fire and the plane crashes (UPS; Asiana.) Not very often (only Air Canada 797 comes to mind and although it was on the ground 20 minutes after smoke was verified, 50% of the people on the plane died before they could evacuate) does a plane that is REALLY on fire get on the ground before it crashes.
Wonder why they would not land in Fargo (9,000 foot runway; 90 nm from turn-around point) or Grand Forks Air Force Base (12,351 foot runway; 104 nm from turn-around point) rather than flying 180nm to Winnipeg.
The only item of consideration which would pertain to this situation is crew familiarity with the airport. How important is that when you're on fire?
I wasn't there. I'm only looking for healthy debate. However, this being PPRuNe, I'm predicting that the first response to this post will be far from healthy.
It seems too common that either it's not a real fire (so landing at the nearest suitable airport wouldn't have changed anything) or that it IS a real fire and the plane crashes (UPS; Asiana.) Not very often (only Air Canada 797 comes to mind and although it was on the ground 20 minutes after smoke was verified, 50% of the people on the plane died before they could evacuate) does a plane that is REALLY on fire get on the ground before it crashes.
Wonder why they would not land in Fargo (9,000 foot runway; 90 nm from turn-around point) or Grand Forks Air Force Base (12,351 foot runway; 104 nm from turn-around point) rather than flying 180nm to Winnipeg.
The only item of consideration which would pertain to this situation is crew familiarity with the airport. How important is that when you're on fire?
I wasn't there. I'm only looking for healthy debate. However, this being PPRuNe, I'm predicting that the first response to this post will be far from healthy.
Accident: Singapore A333 near Bangkok on Apr 22nd 2013, cargo fire
Read this and tell me it was 18 minutes.
120nm in 18 mins requires an average GS of 400kts, don't think so in an A330!
Read this and tell me it was 18 minutes.
120nm in 18 mins requires an average GS of 400kts, don't think so in an A330!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oval3holer
Yep, you are absolutely correct on two counts.... You weren't there and secondly the first (second.. beaten by a minute) response wont be a healthy debate.
This is Pprune, the first letter standing for "professional". Why on earth would a professional (in every sense of the word) pilot get involved in such a "debate" when the people that pay their wages (the travelling public) and the Press can eavesdrop, misconstrue and misquote?
If you want a healthly debate, the next time you fly, turn to the guy next to you and ask him what he thinks. If you want to debate the issue with people pushing an agenda or whose flying experience doesn't extend beyond MS Flight Sim or watching the movie "Airplane", go right ahead, but that won't be a healthy debate either.
Edited to add. Go to the link from KABoy and join the "healthy" debate over there
This is Pprune, the first letter standing for "professional". Why on earth would a professional (in every sense of the word) pilot get involved in such a "debate" when the people that pay their wages (the travelling public) and the Press can eavesdrop, misconstrue and misquote?
If you want a healthly debate, the next time you fly, turn to the guy next to you and ask him what he thinks. If you want to debate the issue with people pushing an agenda or whose flying experience doesn't extend beyond MS Flight Sim or watching the movie "Airplane", go right ahead, but that won't be a healthy debate either.
Edited to add. Go to the link from KABoy and join the "healthy" debate over there
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 11th May 2013 at 04:12.
I think Oval has a good point. Why not debate here? I think we can separate the wheat from the chaff. No?
I would have gone to the nearest suitable, in this case Fargo apparently, unless there was a good reason to go elsewhere (wx, runway closures, etc). All the more reason to follow along the route's suitable alternates' weather and notams. Very few people I fly with do this. Why?
I would have gone to the nearest suitable, in this case Fargo apparently, unless there was a good reason to go elsewhere (wx, runway closures, etc). All the more reason to follow along the route's suitable alternates' weather and notams. Very few people I fly with do this. Why?
Last edited by cxorcist; 11th May 2013 at 05:46.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not debate it here? You have answered your own question, whilst you can make up your own mind what is wheat and what is chaff, do you think other users on this site, with very different agendas than you, can make such a distinction?
Read the comments from the "experts" on the link provided by KAboy and then read the big red writing at the bottom of this page. Do really think it is wise to discuss such a complex and sensitive subject on a public forum.
If you really want to debate this, I can think of two other private forums available to you. Why not go there and have your debate?
(PS... The final question is not rhetorical)
Read the comments from the "experts" on the link provided by KAboy and then read the big red writing at the bottom of this page. Do really think it is wise to discuss such a complex and sensitive subject on a public forum.
If you really want to debate this, I can think of two other private forums available to you. Why not go there and have your debate?
(PS... The final question is not rhetorical)
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the more reason to follow along the route's suitable alternates' weather and notams. Very few people I fly with do this. Why?
Edited to add: Not a CX pilot but always interested in sensible aviation debate that might give me more tips to stick behind my ear.
Last edited by Pontius; 11th May 2013 at 06:47.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the nearest "suitable" airport
But what if it was a false warning, and now the airplane has to be dismantled to fly it out again? What will the CP/Company say, that you were too hasty, and should have gone to the regular enroute alternate 150 nm/25 minutes away in friendly Thailand instead of getting the airplane down in 14 minutes at the abandoned military airfield which happened to be 90nm away?
These false warnings happen far too often in my humble opinion. Indeed they seem to outnumber real warnings...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Few place
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Monday morning heroes, RH, HC, GL, AW, CK eat al will spend, oohhhh, a good 2-3 days in discussion, with each other, deciding that the better option was indeed the one the captain "should" have made.
With the benefit of hindsight, a hot coffees, 4-5 like minded management twats, of course the captain reacted hastily/not hastily enough.
What can you do. My TCW, get it on the ground, and walk away.
Don't forget, hull losses are anticipayed and catered for.
Same team, same dream
With the benefit of hindsight, a hot coffees, 4-5 like minded management twats, of course the captain reacted hastily/not hastily enough.
What can you do. My TCW, get it on the ground, and walk away.
Don't forget, hull losses are anticipayed and catered for.
Same team, same dream
Last edited by monster330; 11th May 2013 at 12:13.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who said it was a Fire warning that didn't go out????
Therefore the Captain is well within his rights to fly to the nearest "suitable" airport.
Therefore the Captain is well within his rights to fly to the nearest "suitable" airport.
I don't second-guess the decisions of crews 'on the day' because I don't know what information they have to make their judgements. I cross my fingers and hope I don't have to cross that bridge. I am, however, interested to hear of these things so that I may engage my own grey matter and think what I might do in imagined circumstances. Likewise, if and when I do have to make my decisions, if a bunch of Internet experts don't like it then they can shove it where the sun shines not
As we're all professionals on this forum, I'm sure that we are all aware of the change in the ICAO ERG codes in the 2013 edition. There is a new code - Z - which is specifcally for Lithium batteries.
It says: "Aircraft cargo fire supression system may not extinguish or contain the fire. Consider landing immediately."
That's immediately. Not LAND ASAP in amber or red. Right now - in a field, in the sea, on a motorway. Just get it on the ground - now!
If I have Li batteries on the NOTOC, or even if I'm suspicious that there are unotified batteries in the hold, then I'm going to bear in mind what the experts advise.
Well done guys!
It says: "Aircraft cargo fire supression system may not extinguish or contain the fire. Consider landing immediately."
That's immediately. Not LAND ASAP in amber or red. Right now - in a field, in the sea, on a motorway. Just get it on the ground - now!
If I have Li batteries on the NOTOC, or even if I'm suspicious that there are unotified batteries in the hold, then I'm going to bear in mind what the experts advise.
Well done guys!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Here
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the more reason to follow along the route's suitable alternates' weather and notams. Very few people I fly with do this. Why?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you'd like to divert to an enroute airport simply chosen for the extent of it's range ring??
STP