Knocking on heavens door.
With it being the weekend before the great annual ‘knock-off’ there is a shortage of technical insight to the extraordinary accident mentioned above; however, here are a great many questions which, I believe, need answers – from the ATsB, CAsA and possibly the training outfit.
In an airborne fire situation, as any boy scout will tell you, an ability to contain and supress the flames; and, to isolate the heat source is essential. These are fairly important systems to have in an aircraft engine bay; there ain’t in reality much in the way of ‘combustible’ material in there. Lots of ‘heat’ sources but not too much you could throw on a BBQ to cook the snags with.
One of the big dangers is ‘fuel’, particularly fuel under pressure – spaying – even the most humble of aircraft have a system which, in an emergency, can stop fuel entering the engine bay, behind the engine fire-wall i.e. a fuel cock (tap) located within the cockpit. In a single engine aircraft, turning off the fuel supply will stop the engine running, leading to forced landing (with luck) but the aircraft is not burning. With proper maintenance the chances of a ‘fuel-fed’ fire in an engine bay equal those of winning the Lottery.
If you take ‘fuel’ out of the mix, you may as well exclude ‘oil’ which needs a lot of provocation to ‘burn’; which leaves us with ‘electrics’. Fuses, known as circuit breakers are built into the system to protect against ‘over-heat’ – or overload creating heat if you prefer and ‘short circuit’. To keep this as simple as possible; think of a car or even a motor bike. The battery is used to ‘start’ the engine, once the engine is running, the ‘Alternator’ becomes active and will replace the ‘charge’ taken out of the battery used during the start; then the Alternator will 'feed' the heavy current use items, and only top up the battery as and when required. It is a heat source and a potential spark producer. Should the Alternator warning flash (ring, beep or whatever) or the ‘gauge’ starts showing an overload condition – there is ‘usually’ a system provided to isolate the Alternator; even if it only a simple circuit breaker; it is essential that the system can be ‘controlled’. Removing a ‘heat source’ and potential damage to essential systems. This leaves us with the battery. Lead Acid (car battery) can produce Hydrogen, when charging. The aircraft battery is usually ahead of the engine firewall; or isolated within the airframe and ‘vented’ to prevent any chance of an explosive gas becoming a danger. So far, so good.
So, WTD happened in Tasmania? A glass fibre aircraft caught fire at altitude. Why?
I would also be interested in the procedures used to contain and control the fire. As in was the pilot able to isolate the Alternator; could he isolate the battery; why was the entire ‘heat source’ not shut down immediately the fire was determined to be ‘uncontrollable’; was the ‘circling’ necessary?
"[and] that Inspector Hopkins circled above Hagley for a short time, looking for an area to make an emergency landing.
Was the fire extinguisher used after all methods of fire control had failed?
As stated, not enough technical ‘systems’ control data at hand – or; even situational details.
Fire – airborne is potentially lethal, fiberglass burns.
Please note: I am in no way knocking or denigrating the pilot. Senior, seasoned police officers are not known for their lack of courage, calmness or stupidity. He did remarkably well and earns a Choc frog for a job well done (and a beer if I ever get to meet him). But I am left wondering about (a) what was the root cause of the fire; (b) what systems control are available to contain ‘fire’ (heat); © why are the ATSB not investigating the accident?
That’s it, nothing else except to wish ‘Hoppy’ a speedy recovery and a merry Christmas. Curiosity is a bitch though ain’t it.
Sweetheart – these pilgrims here are thirsty – could you oblige; thank you……..
![[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm_HajunJBQ/Vuc7mMGoOSI/AAAAAAAAISU/PLJPRoRPvKUtliZvp7KwgHIZKQm9J3TpQ/s1600/Untitled%2B2.jpg)
With it being the weekend before the great annual ‘knock-off’ there is a shortage of technical insight to the extraordinary accident mentioned above; however, here are a great many questions which, I believe, need answers – from the ATsB, CAsA and possibly the training outfit.
In an airborne fire situation, as any boy scout will tell you, an ability to contain and supress the flames; and, to isolate the heat source is essential. These are fairly important systems to have in an aircraft engine bay; there ain’t in reality much in the way of ‘combustible’ material in there. Lots of ‘heat’ sources but not too much you could throw on a BBQ to cook the snags with.
One of the big dangers is ‘fuel’, particularly fuel under pressure – spaying – even the most humble of aircraft have a system which, in an emergency, can stop fuel entering the engine bay, behind the engine fire-wall i.e. a fuel cock (tap) located within the cockpit. In a single engine aircraft, turning off the fuel supply will stop the engine running, leading to forced landing (with luck) but the aircraft is not burning. With proper maintenance the chances of a ‘fuel-fed’ fire in an engine bay equal those of winning the Lottery.
If you take ‘fuel’ out of the mix, you may as well exclude ‘oil’ which needs a lot of provocation to ‘burn’; which leaves us with ‘electrics’. Fuses, known as circuit breakers are built into the system to protect against ‘over-heat’ – or overload creating heat if you prefer and ‘short circuit’. To keep this as simple as possible; think of a car or even a motor bike. The battery is used to ‘start’ the engine, once the engine is running, the ‘Alternator’ becomes active and will replace the ‘charge’ taken out of the battery used during the start; then the Alternator will 'feed' the heavy current use items, and only top up the battery as and when required. It is a heat source and a potential spark producer. Should the Alternator warning flash (ring, beep or whatever) or the ‘gauge’ starts showing an overload condition – there is ‘usually’ a system provided to isolate the Alternator; even if it only a simple circuit breaker; it is essential that the system can be ‘controlled’. Removing a ‘heat source’ and potential damage to essential systems. This leaves us with the battery. Lead Acid (car battery) can produce Hydrogen, when charging. The aircraft battery is usually ahead of the engine firewall; or isolated within the airframe and ‘vented’ to prevent any chance of an explosive gas becoming a danger. So far, so good.
So, WTD happened in Tasmania? A glass fibre aircraft caught fire at altitude. Why?
I would also be interested in the procedures used to contain and control the fire. As in was the pilot able to isolate the Alternator; could he isolate the battery; why was the entire ‘heat source’ not shut down immediately the fire was determined to be ‘uncontrollable’; was the ‘circling’ necessary?
"[and] that Inspector Hopkins circled above Hagley for a short time, looking for an area to make an emergency landing.
Was the fire extinguisher used after all methods of fire control had failed?
As stated, not enough technical ‘systems’ control data at hand – or; even situational details.
Fire – airborne is potentially lethal, fiberglass burns.
Please note: I am in no way knocking or denigrating the pilot. Senior, seasoned police officers are not known for their lack of courage, calmness or stupidity. He did remarkably well and earns a Choc frog for a job well done (and a beer if I ever get to meet him). But I am left wondering about (a) what was the root cause of the fire; (b) what systems control are available to contain ‘fire’ (heat); © why are the ATSB not investigating the accident?
That’s it, nothing else except to wish ‘Hoppy’ a speedy recovery and a merry Christmas. Curiosity is a bitch though ain’t it.
Sweetheart – these pilgrims here are thirsty – could you oblige; thank you……..