ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting)

Today in History

ARFF Working Group - Wed, 04/10/2019 - 03:37

9 Years ago today: On 10 April 2010 a Polish Air Force Tupolev 154M crashed near Smolensk, Russia, killing all 96 on board, including Polish President Lech Kaczynski.

Date: Saturday 10 April 2010 Time: 10:41 Type: Tupolev Tu-154M Operator: Polish Air Force Registration: 101 C/n / msn: 90A837 First flight: 1990 Total airframe hrs: 5143 Cycles: 3899 Engines:Soloviev D-30KU-154-II Crew: Fatalities: 8 / Occupants: 8 Passengers: Fatalities: 88 / Occupants: 88 Total: Fatalities: 96 / Occupants: 96 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Aircraft fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: ca 1 km E of Smolensk Air Base (   Russia) Phase: Approach (APR) Nature: Official state flight Departure airport: Warszawa-Okecie Airport (WAW/EPWA), Poland Destination airport: Smolensk Air Base (XUBS), Russia

A Tupolev 154M passenger jet, operated the Polish Air Force, was destroyed when it crashed on approach to Smolensk Air Base in poor visibility. All on board were killed in the accident, including Polish President Lech Kaczynski.
The airplane departed Warszawa-Okecie Airport (WAW), Poland at 07:27 local time, carrying Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife, several Members of Parliament, President of the National Bank of Poland Slawomir Skrzypek, Chief of General Staff Franciszek Gagor, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrzej Kremer and a number of passengers and crew members.
During the flight the crew was in contact with air traffic controllers at Minsk, Moscow and Smolensk. The crew also was in contact with the crew of a Polish Air Force Yakovlev 40 passenger plane that had landed at Smolensk Air Base 90 minutes ahead of the Presidential flight.
At about 10:14 the flight descended through an altitude of 7500 m. Minsk Control radioed that the visibility at Smolensk Air Base was 400 m due to fog. The same conditions were transmitted to the crew when they contacted the controller at Smolensk. About 10:25 the pilot of the Yak-40 on the ground at Smolensk radioed that horizontal visibility was 400 m and vertical visibility about 50 m. Shortly afterwards they reported that an Ilyushin 76 transport plane had diverted to an alternate airfield after two attempts to land.
The crew continued preparations for an approach to runway 26 at the Smolensk Air Base. The cockpit door was open and during the approach there were two passengers present on the flight deck.
Meanwhile, visibility worsened to 200 m. This information was transmitted to the crew at 10:37. The crew requested permission to carry out a ‘trial’ approach to decision height (100 m) and asked the controller to expect a go around.
About 18 seconds before impact the terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) sounded: “Pull up”, followed by an aural warning: “TERRAIN AHEAD”. About 5 seconds before impact the autopilot and autothrottle were disconnected in order to execute a go around. The airplane contacted upsloping terrain at a distance of about 1100 meters from the runway and 40 m to the left of extended centreline. The aircraft height at that point was 15 m below the level of the runway threshold. The left wing struck a large tree causing the airplane to roll inverted. The Tu-154 crashed and broke up

Probable Cause:

The immediate cause of the accident was the failure of the crew to take a timely decision to proceed to an alternate airdrome although they were not once timely informed on the actual weather conditions at Smolensk “Severny” Airdrome that were significantly lower than the established airdrome minima; descent without visual contact with ground references to an altitude much lower than minimum descent altitude for go around (100 m) in order to establish visual flight as well as no reaction to the numerous TAWS warnings which led to controlled flight into terrain, aircraft destruction and death of the crew and passengers.

According to the conclusion made by the pilot-experts and aviation psychologists, the presence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Forces in the cockpit until the collision exposed psychological pressure on the PIC’s decision to continue descent in the conditions of unjustified risk with a dominating aim of landing at any means.

Contributing factors to the accident were:
– long discussion of the Tu-154M crew with the Protocol Director and crew of the Polish Yak-40 concerning the information on the actual weather that was lower than the established minima and impossibility (according to the Tu-154M crew opinion) to land at the destination airdrome which increased the psychological stress of the crew and made the PIC experience psychological clash of motives: on the one hand he realized that landing in such conditions was unsafe, on the other hand he faced strong motivation to land exactly at the destination airdrome.
In case of proceeding to an alternate airdrome the PIC expected negative reaction from the Main Passenger;
– lack of compliance to the SOP and lack of CRM in the crew;
– a significant break in flights in complicated weather conditions (corresponding to his weather minima 60×800) that the PIC had had as well as his low experience in conducting non-precision approach;
– early transition by the navigator to the altitude callouts on the basis of the radio altimeter indications without considering the uneven terrain;
– conducting flight with engaged autopilot and autothrottle down to altitudes much lower than the minimum descent altitude which does not comply with the FCOM provisions;
– late start of final descent which resulted in increased vertical speed of descent the crew had to maintain.

The systematic causes of the accident involving the Tu-154M tail number 101 aircraft of the Republic of Poland were significant shortcomings in the organization of flight operations, flight crew preparation and arrangement of the VIP flight in the special air regiment.

In a separate investigation , the Polish Committee for Investigation of National Aviation Accidents concluded the following:

Cause of Accident:
The immediate cause of the accident was the descent below the minimum descent altitude at an excessive rate of descent in weather conditions which prevented visual contact with the ground, as well as a delayed execution of the go-around procedure. Those circumstances led to an impact on a terrain obstacle resulting in separation of a part of the left wing with aileron and consequently to the loss of aircraft control and eventual ground impact.

Circumstances Contributing to the Accident:
1) Failure to monitor altitude by means of a pressure altimeter during a non-precision approach;
2) failure by the crew to respond to the PULL UP warning generated by the TAWS;
3) attempt to execute the go-around maneuver under the control of ABSU (automatic go around);
4) Approach Control confirming to the crew the correct position of the airplane in relation to the RWY threshold, glide slope, and course which might have affirmed the crew’s belief that the approach was proceeding correctly although the airplane was actually outside the permissible deviation margin;
5) failure by LZC to inform the crew about descending below the glide slope and delayed issuance of the level-out command;
6) incorrect training of the Tu-154M flight crews in the 36 Regiment.

Conducive circumstances:
1) incorrect coordination of the crew’s work, which placed an excessive burden on the aircraft commander in the final phase of the flight;
2) insufficient flight preparation of the crew;
3) the crew‘s insufficient knowledge of the airplane’s systems and their limitations;
4) inadequate cross-monitoring among the crew members and failure to respond to the mistakes committed;
5) crew composition inadequate for the task;
6) ineffective immediate supervision of the 36 Regiment’s flight training process by the Air Force Command;
7) failure by the 36 Regiment to develop procedures governing the crew’s actions in the event of:
a) failure to meet the established approach criteria;
b) using radio altimeter for establishing alarm altitude values for various types of approach;
c) distribution of duties in a multi-crew flight.
8) sporadic performance of flight support duties by LZC over the last 12 months, in particular under difficult WC, and lack of practical experience as LZC at the SMOLENSK NORTH airfield.

The post Today in History appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Today is Tuesday the 9th of April, 2019

ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:46

Here are the stories for today…

I’m heading to Indianapolis tomorrow for FDIC, so if your anywhere near booth 2207, stop by and say hello!

Be safe out there!


The post Today is Tuesday the 9th of April, 2019 appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Crash landing at Melville Hall

ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:35

Dominica News Online 

The news reaching DNO is that a plane has encountered some difficulty while landing at the Douglas-Charles airport in Melville Hall.

The information is that the plane’s landing gear may have collapsed.

A source at the airport told DNO that there were no severe injuries. However. one person is reported to have received a cut above one of his eyes and some others are complaining of chest pains.

DNO was also informed that the plane, a Sky Airline aircraft, was coming from Santo Dominigo.

We understand that the airport has since officially been  closed.

The post Crash landing at Melville Hall appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Airplane crash at Santa Fe airport kills 2

ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:33

By Dillon Mullan | The New Mexican

The pilot of a single-engine plane and the aircraft’s only passenger died Monday following a crash at the Santa Fe Regional Airport, New Mexico State Police said.

A accident involving a single engine airplane claimed one life at the Santa Fe Regional Airport in Santa Fe, Monday April 8, 2019. (Eddie Moore/Albuquerque Journal)

The Associated Press, quoting a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman, reported the crash happened at about 3:40 p.m., and the plane was destroyed by fire. The plane was described as a light-sport aircraft.

Santa Fe Fire Department assistant chief Carlos Nava told The New Mexican that members of department’s crash rescue unit, which is stationed at the airport, responded to the incident, which occurred on airport property on a side runway just south of a National Guard complex.

The FAA is investigating the incident, according to state police, which has not identified the deceased.

The agency initially said on social media that the pilot was the only occupant of the aircraft. A spokesman later said a passenger was on board and also deceased.

Monday’s fatal crash is the second at the airport in the past five months. In late November, Larry Nelson of Wheat Ridge, Colo., crashed just short of the runway. He was making a trip from Arizona to Akron, Colo. Family members believe he was making an emergency diversion to the Santa Fe airport. Nelson was 73.

The post Airplane crash at Santa Fe airport kills 2 appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Cathay Dragon flight makes safe emergency landing in Taiwan

ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:31

AFP News

A Cathay Dragon flight from Taiwan to Hong Kong made an emergency landing on Monday after experiencing a “technical issue” shortly after take-off with sparks reported coming from one of the Airbus A330’s engine exhausts.

Cathay Pacific, the parent company of Cathay Dragon, said flight KA451 from Kaohsiung to Hong Kong made an “air return” and landed safely back at the southern Taiwanese city some 50 minutes after take off.

An official with Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) told AFP the emergency was caused by a “technical failure on one of the engines” and denied Taiwanese media reports of a bird strike.

The official, who declined to be named because he was not authorised to speak with media, added an investigation was underway.

Cathay said the safety of its 330 passengers and crew was “at no time” at risk and that a thorough inspection would be carried out of the aircraft.

“There was no indication of an engine fire on the aircraft, however, due to the technical issue, loud noises and sparks were reported coming from the engine exhaust prior to the engine being shut down as per operational procedures,” Cathay told AFP.

The Apple Daily newspaper cited local aviation officials as saying the plane’s right engine emitted smoke during take-off and that local residents nearby said they had heard an explosive sound.

Arrangements were being made to get passengers on new flights, the carrier said.

The emergency landing comes at a time of renewed concern over the safety of a popular passenger jet made by Airbus rival Boeing.

The US aviation giant’s 737 MAX model has experienced two deadly crashes in less than five months, forcing a worldwide grounding of the model.

The post Cathay Dragon flight makes safe emergency landing in Taiwan appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Small plane makes emergency landing in West Bountiful field

ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:29

By Gephardt Daily Staff

WEST BOUNTIFUL, Utah, April 8, 2019 (Gephardt Daily) — A small plane made an emergency landing in a field just east of Legacy Parkway in West Bountiful on Monday afternoon. 

Woods Cross Police Department tweeted at 2:10 p.m., “Small plane lost fuel pressure, landing in a field at 500 South just East of Legacy Parkway. Both pilots are not injured.”

West Bountiful Police Department is investigating the incident, the tweet said.

The incident occurred at milepost 5, said a tweet from the Utah Department of Transportation, and the right lane is closed as a result of the crash.

The estimated clearance time is 3:10 p.m., the tweet from UDOT said.

The post Small plane makes emergency landing in West Bountiful field appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Police, firefighters and ambulance called as plane crash lands near Coupar Angus

ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:26

by Jamie Buchan

A pilot and his student had a lucky escape after their plane was forced to make an emergency landing near an east Perthshire farm.

The light aircraft came down near Kettins, about two miles from Coupar Angus, just before 3pm.

Emergency services, including about a dozen firefighters, were scrambled to the scene at Newton of Ballunie.

Both men were said to have walked away uninjured from the damaged Cessna 152 craft.

The Department for Transport’s Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) confirmed a probe is now under way.

The post Police, firefighters and ambulance called as plane crash lands near Coupar Angus appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.


ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:24

By Ashley Calingo, PEO Land Systems Public Affairs, Marine Corps Systems Command

Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. —

Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.—Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fight Marines are getting a modernized rig—their first in over 30 years. The P-19R ARFF will be the principal firefighting and crash response vehicle for the Marine Air Ground Task Force, and will be able to support all operations where the MAGTF is employed. 

The Medium and Heavy Tactical Vehicles program office at Program Executive Officer Land Systems started fielding the P-19R vehicle in June 2017 and, since then, have fielded the majority of the new trucks to Marine Corps installations across the continental United States.

“So far, the reception from the Marines on the capability of the truck has been outstanding,” said Eric Miller, product manager for the P-19R at PEO Land Systems. “Obviously after 30 years, Marines are excited about having a new capability. It’s been very well received.”

The technological advancements made by Industry over the past few decades are reflected in the modernized truck. The P-19R integrates combat-proven performance and advanced firefighting technology to deliver cutting-edge on-road and off-road rescue and firefighting capabilities to permanent and expeditionary airfields throughout the Marine Corps.

With the P-19R—as with its predecessor, the P-19A—Marines are able to counter aircraft fires caused by crashes or other causes. The P-19R is safer, faster, has a more powerful engine and has nearly double the fuel capacity compared to its predecessor. The P-19R’s 600 horsepower engine enables the vehicle to accelerate from zero to 50 miles per hour in under 25 seconds, and can reach speeds over 70 miles per hour, enabling ARFF Marines to swiftly reach the scene of the action. To put this in context, the Corps’ workhorse Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement—more commonly known as the “MTVR” or “7-ton”—takes over 30 seconds to reach 50 miles per hour and has a maximum speed under 70 miles per hour.

Inside the cab, the P-19R is outfitted with a 10.4-inch display unit—dubbed the “command zone”—giving Marines the ability to monitor different aspects of the vehicle. The command zone enables Marines to keep tabs on everything from tire pressure to water and fluid levels, in addition to other internal diagnostics.

“The P-19R is a lot more technologically advanced and has more bells and whistles than the older [fire trucks] do,” said Cpl. Dominic Wirthlin, ARFF specialist with Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron in California. “The command zone tells us if anything’s wrong with the vehicle that can cause an issue so we can fix it before something breaks.”

The bumper and roof turret controls on the P19-R also received an upgrade. Using an electronic joystick, Marines are now able to maneuver the turrets and—with the push of a button—switch between spraying water and flame-suppressing foam. 

“The turrets are manually-operated. It’s almost like playing a video game,” said Sgt. Christopher Cunningham, another ARFF specialist at MCAS Camp Pendleton H&HS. “Everything [on the P-19R] is technologically advanced. It’s just a really cool rig.”

Unlike its predecessor, however, the P-19R can be used off the airfield in tactical operations, such as combating structural fires and wildland fires. The ruggedized P-19R was designed so Marines have the ability to navigate through any terrain off-road they may encounter—from the mountains to the desert to the jungle.

“Prior to the P-19R, the fire station assets and the assets that the Marine Wing Support Squadrons use weren’t shared,” said Suzanne Deer, a logistician with the MHTV program office at PEO Land Systems. “With the P-19R, one vehicle can be used interchangeably between the air stations and the tactical community.”

From logistical standpoint, the P-19R shares major components with other tactical vehicles in MHTV program portfolio—specifically, the Logistics Vehicle Systems Replacement vehicle and the MTVR—which will make it easier to source and replace parts as needed in its 22-year future, said Deer. For example, the P-19R shares a common engine with the LVSR, and uses the same suspension system as the MTVR. Additionally, the P-19R uses the same wheels and tires as both the LVSR and MTVR vehicles. It also shares the same central tire inflation system capable of maintaining and adjusting tire pressure according to the terrain, along with providing runflat protection for punctured tires.

With the bulk of the vehicles already fielded across I and II MEF, the program office is heading to Japan this summer to field the P-19R to III MEF and its associated Marine Wing Support Squadrons and Marine Corps Installations. The program office anticipates completing fielding of all 164 vehicles by February 2020.

The post THE CORPS’ NEW FIRE TRUCK IS ROLLING TOWARD FOC appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Today in History

ARFF Working Group - Tue, 04/09/2019 - 08:21

67 Years ago today: On 9 April 1952 a Japan Air Lines Martin 2-0-2 crashed into the Mihara volcano, killing all 37 occupants.

Date: Wednesday 9 April 1952 Time: 08:07 Type: Martin 2-0-2 Operating for: Japan Air Lines – JAL Leased from: Northwest Orient Airlines Registration: N93043 C/n / msn: 9164 First flight: Crew: Fatalities: 4 / Occupants: 4 Passengers: Fatalities: 33 / Occupants: 33 Total: Fatalities: 37 / Occupants: 37 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Aircraft fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Mihara Volcano (   Japan) Phase: En route (ENR) Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Tokyo-Haneda Airport (HND/RJTT), Japan Destination airport: Fukuoka Airport (FUK/RJFF), Japan

The aircraft, leased from Northwest Airlines, crashed into a mountain. The plane was named “Mokusei”.

The post Today in History appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Today is Monday the 8th of April, 2019

ARFF Working Group - Mon, 04/08/2019 - 08:24

After a rather quiet weekend, we start the new week with the following stories…

Have a great week and be safe out there!


The post Today is Monday the 8th of April, 2019 appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Dutch F-16 fighter jet forced into emergency landing after shooting itself

ARFF Working Group - Mon, 04/08/2019 - 08:21

Incident branded ‘serious’ by Netherlands Department of Defence

Tom Embury-Dennis

An investigation has been launched after a Dutch fighter jet shot itself with its cannon, forcing the plane into an emergency landing.

The Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 suffered “considerable damage” following the accident during a training exercise over Vlieland in January, according to state broadcaster NOS.

At least one round caused damage to the plane’s exterior after the pilot attempted to hit a practice target at Leeuwarden air base. Part of the munition was also found in the engine.

Nobody was injured, NOS reported, and the pilot was able to perform an emergency landing.

The Netherlands Defence Safety Inspection is investigating how the plane was able to fire upon itself and whether any air or ground personnel were endangered during the accident.

“This is a serious incident. We therefore want to fully investigate what happened and how we would be able to avoid this in future”, said Wim Bagerbos, inspector general at the Department of Defence.

It is not known how long the investigation will last.

The post Dutch F-16 fighter jet forced into emergency landing after shooting itself appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Hong Kong-bound jet spews smoke from engine, makes emergency landing in Kaohsiung

ARFF Working Group - Mon, 04/08/2019 - 08:20

Cathay Dragon flight bound for Hong Kong makes emergency landing in Kaohsiung after engine spews smoke

By Keoni Everington,Taiwan News, Staff Writer

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — A Cathay Dragon plane bound for Hong Kong had to make an emergency landing in Kaohsiung after one of its engines started emitting smoke, possibly after striking birds, reported CNA

The Kaohsiung International Airport confirmed that the tower reported Cathay Dragon Flight 451, departing Kaohsiung and bound for Hong Kong, had safely made an emergency landing at 8:31 a.m. this morning, after reporting a problem with one of its engines. After pilots reported smoke coming from one of the jet’s engines, the plane circled back toward Kaohsiung while dumping fuel over the Taiwan Strait and awaiting clearance for its landing.

After taking off at 8 a.m. this morning, an Airbus 330, with 317 passengers onboard, is suspected to have collided with a flock of birds, causing the right engine to emit smoke.

When the plane landed, airport and city fire crews were on standby to contain any blaze. However, there have been no reports of a fire or injuries thus far.

Cathay Dragon said it is trying to arrange alternative flights for passengers so they can reach their destination as soon as possible and has apologized for the delay. The cause of the incident is still under investigation.

The post Hong Kong-bound jet spews smoke from engine, makes emergency landing in Kaohsiung appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

NTSB Releases Preliminary Report From Madeira, OH Accident

ARFF Working Group - Mon, 04/08/2019 - 08:18

Records Show Reported Fuel Leak In The Left Wing Of The Airplane

The NTSB has released its preliminary report from an accident which occurred March 12 in Madeira, OH. The commercial-rated pilot of the Piper Navajo was fatally injured when the airplane impacted terrain while attempting to return to Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field (KLUK), Cincinnati, Ohio after declaring a fuel emergency. 

According to the report, the local flight originated from KLUK at 1051.

Review of FAA preliminary air traffic control (ATC) and radar data revealed that the airplane flew several surveying tracks outside of Cincinnati before proceeding north to fly tracks near Dayton. The pilot reported to ATC that he was having a fuel problem and requested “direct” to LUK and a lower altitude. The controller provided the position of Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport (KMGY), which was located 8 miles ahead. The pilot reported MGY in sight but requested to continue to KLUK. When the pilot checked in with the subsequent ATC facility, he reported that the fuel issue was resolved. Seven miles north of KLUK, the pilot established radio contact with the LUK tower controller. He advised the controller that the airplane was experiencing a fuel problem and he did not think it was going to reach the airport. The airplane slowed to a groundspeed of 80 knots before the air traffic controller noted a simultaneous loss of radar and radio contact about 5 nautical miles north of KLUK.

A relative of the pilot reported that the pilot told him the airplane “had a fuel leak and it was killing his sinuses” about 1 week prior to the accident. A company employee revealed that the airplane had a fuel leak in the left wing, and that the airplane was due to be exchanged with another company PA-31-350 the week before the accident occurred so that the fuel leak could be isolated and repaired. The accident airplane remained parked for a few days, was not exchanged, and then the accident pilot was brought in to continue flying the airplane.

According to witnesses, the airplane flew “very low” and the engine sputtered before making two loud “pop” or “back-fire” sounds. One witness reported that after sputtering, the airplane “was on its left side flying crooked.” Another witness reported that the “unusual banking” made the airplane appear to be flying “like a stunt in an airshow.” Two additional witnesses reported that the airplane was flying 100-120 ft above ground level in a southerly direction before it turned to the left and “nosedived.” Another witness reported that he could see the entire belly of the airplane and the airplane nose was pointing down toward the ground just prior to the airplane impacting a tree. A witness from an adjacent residence reported that there was a “whitish gray smoke coming from the left engine” after the accident, and that a small flame began rising” from that area when he was on the phone with 9-1-1 about 3 minutes after the accident.

According to FAA airmen records, the pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single and multi-engine land and instrument airplane. The pilot also held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine and instrument airplane and a ground instructor certificate. His most recent FAA first-class medical certificate was issued November 8, 2018. Examination of pilot’s logbooks revealed 6,392 total hours of flight experience as of February 19, 2019, including 1,364 hours in the accident airplane make and model. His most recent logged flight review was completed January 31, 2017.

According to FAA airworthiness records, the twin-engine airplane was manufactured in 1981. It was powered by two Lycoming, 350-horsepower engines, which drove two 3-bladed, constant-speed, counter-rotating propellers.

Examination of the accident site and wreckage revealed that the airplane impacted a tree and private residence before it came to rest upright on a 335° heading. All major portions of the airplane were located on site.

The fuselage was substantially damaged. The instrument panel was fragmented and destroyed. The engine control levers were fire damaged and all levers were in the full forward position. Control continuity was established from the flight controls to the flight control surfaces except for one elevator cable attachment, which exhibited a tensile overload fracture. The left wing remained attached to the fuselage. The outboard leading edge of the left wing was crushed upward and aft, and the inboard section displayed thermal and impact damage. The right wing outboard of the right nacelle was impact separated, and a section of the right wing came to rest on the roof of the home. The leading edge of the right wing section displayed a semi-circular crush area about 1 ft in diameter. The left horizontal stabilizer and elevator were dented. The right horizontal stabilizer and elevator were bet upward at the tip. Measurement of the rudder trim barrel revealed a nose-right trim setting.

Both engines remained attached to their respective wings. The left engine remained attached at the mount, however the mount was bent and fractured in multiple locations. The engine was angled upward about 75°. All but 4 inches of the left propeller was buried and located at initial ground impact point, which was about 13 ft from the left engine. The right engine was found attached to the right wing and its respective engine mounts, however the engine mounts were fractured in multiple locations. All but 6 inches of the right propeller was buried and located at the initial ground impact point, which was about 18 ft from the right engine.

The left engine crankshaft would not rotate upon initial examination. Impact damage was visible to ignition harness leads on both sides of the engine. Both magnetos remained secured and produced sparks at all leads when tested. Less than 2 ounces of fuel was observed within the fuel inlet of the fuel servo upon removal of the servo. The sample tested negative for water. The fuel servo was disassembled and both diaphragms were present and damage free with no signs of tears. The fuel inlet screen was found unobstructed. Rotation of the engine crankshaft was achieved through the vacuum pump drive after the removal of impact damaged pushrods. Spark plugs showed coloration consistent with normal operation and electrodes remained mechanically undamaged. A borescope inspection of all cylinders did not reveal any anomalies. The oil filter was opened, inspected, and no debris was noted. Fuel injectors were removed and unobstructed. Residual or no fuel was found during the examination and removal of components such as fuel lines, injector lines and the fuel pump.

The right engine crankshaft would not rotate upon initial examination. Minor impact damage was visible to ignition harness leads. Cylinder Nos. 2, 4, and 6 displayed varying degrees of impact damage to their top sides. The alternator mount was found fractured and the alternator was not present at the time of engine examination. Spark plugs showed coloration consistent with normal operation and electrodes remained mechanically undamaged. Both magnetos produced sparks at all leads when tested. The fuel servo was dissembled and both diaphragms were present and free of damage with no signs of tears. Engine crankshaft rotation was achieved through the vacuum pump drive after the removal of impact damaged pushrods. A borescope inspection of all cylinders did not reveal any anomalies. The oil filter was opened, inspected and no debris was noted. Fuel injectors were removed and were unobstructed. The oil suction screen was found unobstructed but contained nonferrous pieces of material. Fuel was found during examination of the right engine fuel lines, injector lines, and the fuel pump.

Both propellers were separated from the engine mounting flanges. Examination of the right propeller revealed that all blades exhibited aft bending and bending opposite rotation, twisting leading edge down, and chordwise rotational scoring on both face and camber sides. Examination of the left propeller revealed that two blades exhibited aft bending with no remarkable twist or leading-edge damage. One blade exhibited no remarkable bending or twisting. All three blades exhibited mild chordwise/rotational abrasion.

(Source: NTSB. Image from file. Not accident airplane)

FMI: Report

The post NTSB Releases Preliminary Report From Madeira, OH Accident appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Today in History

ARFF Working Group - Mon, 04/08/2019 - 08:16

51 Years ago today: On 8 April 1968 a BOAC Boeing 707 suffered engine fire and returned to Heathrow on fire for an emergency landing, killing 5 out of 127 occupants.

Date: Monday 8 April 1968 Time: ca 15:35 Type: Boeing 707-465 Operator: British Overseas Airways Corporation – BOAC Registration: G-ARWE C/n / msn: 18373/302 First flight: 1962 Total airframe hrs: 20870 Engines:Rolls-Royce Conway 508 Crew: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 11 Passengers: Fatalities: 4 / Occupants: 116 Total: Fatalities: 5 / Occupants: 127 Aircraft damage: Damaged beyond repair Location: London-Heathrow Airport (LHR) (   United Kingdom) Phase: Initial climb (ICL) Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: London-Heathrow Airport (LHR/EGLL), United Kingdom Destination airport: Zürich-Kloten Airport (ZRH/LSZH), Switzerland Flightnumber: 712

The aircraft was operating Flight BA 712 from London-Heathrow Airport to Zürich and Sydney. A check pilot was on the aircraft for the purpose of carrying out a route check on the pilot-in-command. The aircraft became airborne from runway 28L at 15:27 and 20 seconds later, just before the time for the noise abatement power reduction, the flight crew felt and heard a combined shock and bang. The thrust lever for the No. 2 engine “kicked” towards the closed position and at the same time the instruments showed that the engine was running down. The captain ordered the engine failure drill. Because the undercarriage was retracted, the warning horn sounded when the flight engineer fully retarded the thrust lever; the check pilot and flight-engineer simultaneously went for and pulled the horn cancel switch on the pedestal whilst the co-pilot instinctively but in error pressed the fire bell cancel button. In front of him the flight-engineer went for the engine fire shut-off handle but he did not pull it. The check pilot then reported seeing a serious fire in the No. 2 engine. Having initially started an engine failure drill, the flight engineer changed directly to the engine fire drill. ATC originally offered the pilot-in-command a landing back on runway 28L and alerted the fire services but after a “Mayday” call Flight 712 was offered runway 05R which was accepted as it would result in a shorter flight path. About 1,5 minutes after the start of the fire, No. 2 engine, together with part of its pylon, became detached and fell into a waterfilled gravel pit. At about the time the engine fell away the undercarriage was lowered and full flap selected. The undercarriage locked down normally but the hydraulic pressure and contents were seen to fall and the flaps stopped extending at 47deg, that is 3deg short of their full range. The approach to runway 05R was made from a difficult position, the aircraft being close to the runway and having reached a height of about 3000 feet and a speed of 225 kt. There is no glide slope guidance to this runway but the approach was well judged and touchdown was achieved approximately 400 yards beyond the threshold. The aircraft came to a stop just to the left of the runway centre line, about 1800 yards from the threshold.
After the aircraft came to rest the flight engineer commenced the engine shut-down drill and closed the start levers. Almost simultaneously the pilot-in-command ordered fire drill on the remaining engines. Before this could be carried out there was an explosion from the port wing which increased the intensity of the fire and blew fragments of the wing over to the starboard side of the aircraft. The pilot-in-command then ordered immediate evacuation of the flight deck. The engine fire shut-off handles were not pulled and the fuel booster pumps and main electrical supply were not switched off. There were more explosions and fuel, which was released from the port tanks, spread underneath the aircraft and greatly enlarged the area of the fire. The cabin crew had made preparations for an emergency landing and as the aircraft came to a stop opened the emergency exits and started rigging the escape chutes. The passengers commenced evacuation from the two starboard overwing exits and shortly afterwards, when the escape chutes had been inflated, from the rear starboard galley door and then the forward starboard galley door. However, because of the spread of the fire under the rear of the fuselage the escape chute at the rear galley door soon burst and, following the first explosion, the overwing escape route also became unusable. The great majority of the survivors left the aircraft via the forward galley door escape chute

Probable Cause:

PROBABLE CAUSE: “The accident resulted from an omission to close the fuel shut off valve when No. 2 engine caught fire following the failure of its No. 5 low pressure compressor wheel. The failure of the wheel was due to fatigue.”

The post Today in History appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Today is Friday the 5th of April, 2019

ARFF Working Group - Fri, 04/05/2019 - 10:28

We close out this week with these stories..

Everyone have a great weekend!


The post Today is Friday the 5th of April, 2019 appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

FAA: Helicopter had possible mechanical problems days before deadly crash-landing

ARFF Working Group - Fri, 04/05/2019 - 10:26

By Catherine Hawley, Natalia Verdina, FOX 13 News

TAMPA, Fla. (FOX 13) – The helicopter involved in a crash-landing that resulted in the death of a motorist Thursday had possible mechanical problems days before, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Officials with the FAA confirmed it is investigating a reported possible mechanical problem with the Robinson R44 helicopter that took place March 31. At the time, the pilot was the only person onboard the aircraft. It landed safely in Lutz just before 11 a.m.

Thursday just before 3 p.m., however, the aircraft had to be crash-landed on 50th Street in the Palm River area after it suffered a “catastrophic engine failure,” according to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office.

When the chopper hit the pavement, it skidded several dozen yards.

“If this had been on grass he would have probably stopped right where he landed,” NTSB Air Safety Investigator Dan Boggs said. “He really did about the best job you could do in this situation.”

A portion of the aircraft’s rotor broke off and flew into the window of a passing pickup truck, killing the passenger and injuring the driver. The passenger was the father of the driver. The deceased was identified as 70-year-old Deodat Persaud Gangapersaud, of Plant City.

The helicopter’s pilot, identified as 39-year-old Bryan Messick, and his passenger were not seriously injured, but the sheriff’s office said the pilot of the aircraft was taken to the hospital to be checked out.

Traffic along both 50th Street and Palm River Road was blocked and may be for several hours, troopers added.

The NTSB arrived at the scene of Thursday’s crash in Tampa and was investigating the circumstances.

The post FAA: Helicopter had possible mechanical problems days before deadly crash-landing appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.


ARFF Working Group - Fri, 04/05/2019 - 10:24


A United Express flight bound for Houston diverted to Dallas after two pivotal cockpit screens shut down without warning and could not be restored.

United flight 4390, a CRJ-200 operated by SkyWest, departed from Knoxville, Tennessee on time yesterday evening at 7:34 PM. It would bound for Houston Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH).

About 90 minutes into the flight, the captain announced the plane would be making an unscheduled stop in Dallas due to technical difficulties. Passengers were likely never in danger thanks to the swift and decisive act of the Captain onboard.

Upon landing in Dallas (DFW), the captain explained to passengers what had just occurred:

So you may be able to see we lost two of our screens. Now, if we kept flying, we’d lose them all, eventually, because there’s not enough cooling. There is tremendous heat behind those screens.”

If we had continued, eventually, I’d be flying blind. So, that’s why we are in Dallas right now. It is unlikely this aircraft is going anywhere tonight.

Indeed, the aircraft did remain in Dallas overnight and passengers were rebooked on other flights to their final destination. The flight is scheduled to continue to Dallas today at noon CT.


Pilots are trained to “fly blind” if they must. Even if all the cockpit screens had shut down, I am confident the flight deck crew could have landed that plane safely. Thankfully, that was not necessary.


Today in History

ARFF Working Group - Fri, 04/05/2019 - 10:22

28 Years ago today: On 5 April 1991 an Atlantic Southeast Embraer 120 Brasilia crashed near Brunswick, GA, U.S.A. following a loss of control, killing all 23 occupants.

Date: Friday 5 April 1991 Time: 14:51 Type: Embraer EMB-120RT Brasilia Operated by: Atlantic Southeast Airlines – ASA On behalf of: Delta Connection Registration: N270AS C/n / msn: 120218 First flight: 1990 Total airframe hrs: 816 Cycles: 845 Engines:Pratt & Whitney Canada PW118 Crew: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Passengers: Fatalities: 20 / Occupants: 20 Total: Fatalities: 23 / Occupants: 23 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Aircraft fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: 3 km (1.9 mls) W of Brunswick-Glynco Jetport, GA (BQK) (   United States of America) Phase: Approach (APR) Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Atlanta-William B. Hartsfield International Airport, GA (ATL/KATL), United States of America Destination airport: Brunswick-Glynco Jetport, GA (BQK/KBQK), United States of America Flightnumber: 2311

Flight 2311 was scheduled initially for airplane N228AS to depart at 13:24 EST. Because of mechanical problems an airplane change was made to N270AS. The flight departed Atlanta at 13:47 and arrived in the Brunswick area about 14:44. At 14:48 the flight was cleared for a visual approach to runway 07. The Embraer had just turned from base leg to final approach when the aircraft was seen to pitch up about 5deg and roll to the left until the wings were vertical. The airplane then nosed down into the ground, 9975 feet short of the runway

Probable Cause:

PROBABLE CAUSE: “The loss of control in flight as a result of a malfunction of the left engine propeller control unit which allowed the propeller blade angles to go below the flight idle position. Contributing to the accident was the deficient design of the propeller control unit by Hamilton Standard and the approval of the design by the Federal Aviation Administration. The design did not correctly evaluate the failure mode that occurred during this flight, which resulted in an uncommanded and uncorrectable movement of the blades of the airplane’s left propeller below the flight idle position.”

The post Today in History appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Today is Thursday the 4th of April, 2019

ARFF Working Group - Thu, 04/04/2019 - 10:18

Here are the stories for today…

Be safe out there!


The post Today is Thursday the 4th of April, 2019 appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.

Belfast International Airport easyJet incident sparks urgent investigation

ARFF Working Group - Thu, 04/04/2019 - 10:17

The airport is operating as normal following the incident

By Sarah Scott

An urgent investigation has been launched following an incident involving an easyJet plane at Belfast International Airport .

An emergency response was sparked on Wednesday afternoon after a flight due to fly to Malaga was damaged.

A spokeswoman for easyJet confirmed the flight had been delayed due to damage. 

“easyJet can confirm that flight EZY6755 from Belfast to Malaga has been delayed as a result of damage sustained from a pushback tug,” she said.

“All passengers disembarked normally. They have been provided with refreshment vouchers and support from our ground staff in Belfast Airport.

“A replacement crew will operate the flight to Malaga on a replacement aircraft shortly.

“We apologise to customers for any inconvenience caused.

“The safety of our passengers and crew is easyJet’s highest priority and we have launched an urgent investigation with our ground handling provider at Belfast Airport.”

A spokeswoman for the airport added: “We can confirm we are dealing with a ground incident involving an aircraft, passengers disembarked as normal and have returned to the departure lounge. The airport remains open and operational.”

A spokesman for the NI Ambulance Service said: “The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service received a 999 call at 15.34 on Wednesday 03 April 2019, following reports of an incident at Belfast International Airport NIAS despatched one Rapid Response Paramedic and one Officer to the scene. Incident is still ongoing.”

The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service were called to the scene as part of normal procedures but their services were not needed and it was left in the hands of the airport fire service.

The PSNI were also aware of the incident.

The post Belfast International Airport easyJet incident sparks urgent investigation appeared first on ARFFWG | ARFF Working Group.


Subscribe to Volunteer Mobile Emergency Response Unit -- aggregator - ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting)