Trip7

AA had a wing tank that was pierced by shrapnel from an uncontained engine failure and literally providing fuel to the fire. The entire wing was engulfed.

The Delta SLC incident was a contained engine fire that was put out.

Not sure how you see these two events as almost identical

sailingfun

I was there in SLC. It was not a contained engine fire. The fire was in the accessory section and was never actually extinguished on the aircraft. The accessory sections magnesium casing that the fire had spread into melted to the extent it fell out of the aircraft onto the ramp. The decision not to evacuate was made with several factors in mind including wheel chair passengers. The Captain had the advantage of having fire services on the aircraft seconds after touchdown who gave him accurate information on the status of the fire. The ATL CA did not have that benefit.

https://youtu.be/OetGcnfV0NM

notEnuf

You learned that from an after action report. Watch the vids. At no time was the fire under control and parts were departing the airplane. Magnesium and hot metal could have pierced the tanks at any moment. When foam and water are introduced to that situation it flares up and metallic parts quickly contract, that causes shrapnel. They were lucky. If you choose to hold that as the standard, I question your judgement. Ask one of the AARF guys if they would be willing to sit for 3 minutes in their mock up as they simulate a simple brake fire with a fuel load onboard. No fire suits and no knowledge of the wing or engine condition other than it’s burning enough that flames are seen from the tower. And then ask them to volunteer their loved ones and 100+ others.

Trip7

You keep trying to appeal on emotion rather than logic. I'll ask again, do you have any case studies where a brake fire engulfed aircraft, breaching the fuel tanks within 3 minutes?

Do you not think Airbus or Boeing built these planes to withstand 3 minutes of flames emitting from the brakes?

Also in one post you stated you would of ignored ARFF's recommendation to not evacuate in SLC but now you want me to ask an ARFF if they'd sit on a plane for 3 minutes with a brake fire? You do know it took 15 minutes to put out the fire in SLC right? It was determined the pax were safer inboard vs evacuating. That's called accessing the situation and expanding the team aka CRM

PilotWombat

I also know you're going to argue "It wasn't a brake fire!", but let's use the example of China Air 120. The fire started below the wing near the engine nacelle. Imagine the situation for a second where ATC sees that and says "DL120, you have a fire near your landing gear!" and the pilots interpret that to mean a brake fire, then wait for the trucks to come and give more information. Half the people onboard would have died. I know it's not what happened, but it's pretty easy to see that chain of events.

I believe the FO from that flight is at Delta now.

sailingfun

It’s certainly unusual to evacuate for a brake fire. Delta has had aircraft where they set both trucks on fire and did not evacuate. The Captain however was pushed pretty hard by the tower controller to evacuate. She did not provide especially helpful info. A transmission that the fire was contained to the left truck rear wheels might have led to a different decision.

TED74

You’re quite attached to this three minute figure. That may be the time by with you can expect the first truck to show up. Then what happens? How much time do you allow for the team to be expanded, communications to be established, the situation evaluated from outside and communicated into the cockpit, and then the actual evacuation of actual humans to occur out of all or maybe only some exits? Maybe the first person is out at 3:30…how about the 146th? And the 12th wheelchair passenger in FLL?

Hotel Kilo

The greatest risk of what you are referring to is a rejected takeoff just below V1. That is where the most energy will be absorbed by the brake assemblies. Here's a link to and article written by an actual ARFF chief and trainer.

https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.co...eel-fires-101/

I'll point this quote out to you ref brake fires:

"During these types of incidents, a small wheel and brake fire has the potential to destroy and totally consume the entire aircraft should the heat and flames cause catastrophic failure of the wing fuel tank assembly."

You seem to think that in 3 minutes you'll be ok. Maybe, maybe not. That's a big gamble with lives in the back. If I'm told I'm on fire, we are evacuating. I've made that decision here at 0 knots - not as the SHTF. Our FA's are well trained. We'll get the people out. I'll take a sprained ankle over charred bodies any day.

Trip7

Unless the fuel tank is punctured, which is feasible from a blown tire, the wind tank is not getting destroyed by a brake fire. Also, yes, a brake fire has the potential to consume the aircraft, if you let it sit there for a long time without doing anything.

notEnuf

What emotion? Do you realize that there is more than one AARF person? I know you know I’m right and you know that people outside Delta have studied all these incidents and concluded there is no way to accurately asses the severity of a “small brake fire” until the investigation is concluded. That takes a lot more than 3 minutes. You go ahead and save ankles, I’ll save lives. If you do any GA flying with your family, do you tell them we will let the fire burn until AARF gets here if I determine it’s a “small fire?” Good luck holding people on the airplane when they see flames. You really should consider the fact that you probably won’t “command” anything when people are in survival mode. At least stop and configure. You can have an influence on an orderly efficient evacuation but the long er you wait the less influential you are. Then when you see passengers on the ground shut down etc. BTW is an aircraft fire in the time or no time bucket? Does your aircraft have a fuel tank structure compromised indicator?