SR111- Do procedures need to change?

Date:         09 Sep 98 04:12:04 
From:         k_ish <kenish@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: ICGNetcom
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Let me preface my remarks with the comments that although I have my
private pilot license, I don't know a whole lot about flying large
transports.  Also, the cause and even the sequence of events leading to
the crash of SR111 is still just speculation.

That having been said, it seems to me that SR111, ValuJet, and the AC
DC-9 at CVG (all inflight fires) may have had a better outcome if they
had landed immediately.  In light aircraft, the procedure in case of an
uncontrolled, in-flight fire is to land immediately, even if it is
off-airport.  The top priority is to get on the ground, because a fire
can spread rapidly or cause sudden structural or systems failure.

It seems to me that in a large transport, landing at any airport (even
if the runway is too short) or even off-airport might be better.  Of
course, it's hard to judge while it's happening, but maybe a study of
past inflight fires might create a change in procedures.  As a passenger
or pilot I would rather face getting a MD-11 as slow as possible on a
3000 foot general aviation runway (even though the gear would probably
shear off and/or the plane would overrun the end of the runway), rather
than face another 5 minutes in the air, on fire.

Does anyone with more background have comments?

Regardless of the cause, my heart goes out to the passengers, crew,
relatives, and friends of SR111.

Ken Ishiguro