Search
Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

The Difference!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-30-2010, 09:55 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
JustUnderPar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: UPS Captain
Posts: 837
Default The Difference!

Anyone wonder how a company feels about their employee's? This article should sum it up!

At least one major cargo carrier, FedEx Corp., has committed to voluntarily equip more than 95 of its long-range, wide-body planes that fly oceanic routes with fire-suppression systems.

Fred Smith, FedEx's chief executive, said the company started developing fire-suppression technology several years ago after fire broke out on a FedEx DC-10 over New York. The fire was caused by an undeclared hazardous-materials shipment.

After making a hasty landing, Mr. Smith said, the crew "went out the emergency exit and the plane burned up." There were no fatalities, but had the fire occurred over the ocean, hours from an airport, there could have been a "real tragedy," he said.

Without such systems, pilots who get fire warnings from the cargo hold often must resort to making emergency descents to depressurize the aircraft and try to starve the flames of oxygen. FAA officials didn't have any immediate comment.


Read more: Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com

UPS management will NEVER do something like this unless required by LAW.
JustUnderPar is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 05:29 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 222
Default

Originally Posted by JustUnderPar View Post
Anyone wonder how a company feels about their employee's? This article should sum it up!

At least one major cargo carrier, FedEx Corp., has committed to voluntarily equip more than 95 of its long-range, wide-body planes that fly oceanic routes with fire-suppression systems.

Fred Smith, FedEx's chief executive, said the company started developing fire-suppression technology several years ago after fire broke out on a FedEx DC-10 over New York. The fire was caused by an undeclared hazardous-materials shipment.

After making a hasty landing, Mr. Smith said, the crew "went out the emergency exit and the plane burned up." There were no fatalities, but had the fire occurred over the ocean, hours from an airport, there could have been a "real tragedy," he said.

Without such systems, pilots who get fire warnings from the cargo hold often must resort to making emergency descents to depressurize the aircraft and try to starve the flames of oxygen. FAA officials didn't have any immediate comment.


Read more: Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com

UPS management will NEVER do something like this unless required by LAW.
UPS has never once in the history of the airline and probably the whole company done anything to enhance safety above what is either required by law, osha, insurance or a labor contract.
Naven is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 06:25 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Default

Originally Posted by JustUnderPar View Post
Without such systems, pilots who get fire warnings from the cargo hold often must resort to making emergency descents to depressurize the aircraft and try to starve the flames of oxygen.
Huh?
Starve the flames with that nice thick air at lower altitude, I guess.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 07:24 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 1559
Posts: 1,534
Default

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver View Post
Huh?
Starve the flames with that nice thick air at lower altitude, I guess.
If you are going to fly depressurized, you probably want to get down to 25K max. Of course, I'm probably thinking of the USAF rules and the mighty Tweet.
MX727 is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 08:33 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
JustUnderPar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: UPS Captain
Posts: 837
Default

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver View Post
Huh?
Starve the flames with that nice thick air at lower altitude, I guess.

I was quoting the article......
JustUnderPar is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 09:27 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ERJ Jay's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 362
Default

This is what I don't understand,

"The FAA previously indicated it won't mandate installation of fire-suppression equipment on cargo planes."

Read more: Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com

And why not!!!????
ERJ Jay is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 09:43 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FliFast's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
Default

Let me see how little I know about the -400....

Fire Main Deck

Main Deck Cargo Fire Arm Switch..Armed

This shuts down Tu-pac (two packs). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it shuts off pack 2&3, and pack 1 goes to high flow to increase fresh air to the cockpit. Correct ?

If so, what happens if you have a pack#1 trip on climbout...what does the system do then ???


Secondly, equipment cooling is now in a closed loop..whatever that means.

So now the smoke/override valve opens to evacuate smoke using reverse flow differential-AND- the Flight Deck Equiptment Cooling Source Valve opens to the E&E compartment to use "conditioned air" to cool the screens and the radio racks.

Let me ask someone that knows about the -400. If you shed packs 2&3 and pack 1 has tripped is there any "conditioned air" to cool the screens and the radio racks ? If the radio racks get hot can they malfunction ? Thirdly, if you have a pack #1 trip, is this procedure still valid ?


Then:
Cargo Fire Depress/Disch Switch...push
This opens the outflow valves to depressurize the airplane to a 25,000 foot target altitude. The question again, if you have shed two packs and a third is inop, will the aircraft be able to modulate the outflow valves to achieve a 25,000 foot cabin altitude ? Secondly, if you totally depressurize the airplane, will the cockpit smoke evac handle (the vacuum cleaner port) be ineffective to clear cockpit smoke using differential pressure.

Anyone have some -400 knowledge to share..thanks.

Inquiring minds want to know,
FF
FliFast is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 10:24 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
bleedairpacks's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: MD11 CA (rtd.)
Posts: 318
Default

Wilson and I were so happy on our island too.
bleedairpacks is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 12:38 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,228
Default

Secondly, if you totally depressurize the airplane, will the cockpit smoke evac handle (the vacuum cleaner port) be ineffective to clear cockpit smoke using differential pressure.
Seems like you'd still have venturi suction.

But would that just pull smoke into the cockpit?
Huck is offline  
Old 10-01-2010, 01:44 PM
  #10  
Freightmama!
 
Freightpuppy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 2,880
Default

Originally Posted by ERJ Jay View Post
This is what I don't understand,

"The FAA previously indicated it won't mandate installation of fire-suppression equipment on cargo planes."

Read more: Plane Fires Prompt Battery Safeguards - WSJ.com

And why not!!!????
Because a tragedy on a cargo plane would be an "insignificant loss of human life". Hopefully they will tell my children and their father that to their face if I ever die in a plane crash caused by fire.
Freightpuppy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Horizon Air
21
02-04-2008 07:49 AM
CaptainChar
Technical
11
09-26-2007 04:31 AM
Ellen
Regional
0
04-03-2007 09:54 AM
automatique
JetBlue
135
02-01-2006 09:00 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices