North Cariboo Single Engine

[CloudCover]

Saw their BE20 land 25 in Calgary this morning with the number one fan cut-off. They mentioned it was a fire indication. Assuming it was the photo sensor issuing a false indication when wet.

Anyone know some fact on this event.

[Johnny#5]

Do not worry! The AVCANADA SPECULATION TEAM will figure it out!!!!!!!!!!

[WASIE]

Just trying to make less of a carbon foot print, saving on fuel. It's the new SOP I guess you didn't get the memo !

[human garbage]

This morning? I ask because there was a similar incident in the CADORS (2012C3010) for the 19th:

NCB212 declared emergency with YEG enroute 70 east of Calgary @1553z. TCU advised twr #1 engine fire indication. 7 SOB, 3000lbs fuel. ARFF responded. A/C landed R25 @ 1621z and evacuated passengers. Passengers transported at 1631z.. A/C towed off the runway at 1640z. Runway inspected.

Narrative: UPDATE Maintenance and Manufacturing reported that the event was associated with a faulty fire detection sensor in the left engine. The sensor has been replaced and the aircraft returned to service.

[CloudCover]

Wow. Sounds Identical. But yeah it's was this morning at around 1240z.

[CloudCover]

Me thinks that they fixed the wrong wire.

[human garbage]

Me thinks that they fixed the wrong wire.

No doubt! I hope it wasn't the same crew. Talk about deja vu...

[AOW]

This does raise an interesting question: if you know that your aircraft has fire detectors that are prone to false indications, would you shut down an engine given a fire light?

The airplanes that I fly have been known to have these issues, and I have had a few occaisions where on final, an engine fire light came on for a few seconds, but then went out a few seconds later after rolling the aircraft slightly. We were warned in groundschool that light entering the cowl could cause a fire light to come on, and sure enough, that seemed to be the case.

There was one time, however, when we had a fire light randomly come on 30 miles out, in the descent. No maneuvering would make it go away, but there were no other indications that anything was wrong. I elected to continue inbound with both engines running, carefully monitoring the engine in question, and landed without any incident. I taxiied in, parked, and shut down, and the fire light remained on. After the pax were unloaded, and the light remained on, I opened the cowl to find (surprise) no fire. It turns out that there was a faulty wire, and it was fixed that night. I have often questioned whether this was the best situation. We could have continued on one engine without any problems, and it certainly would have been the safest option, but at the time I felt that I was making an accepable risk decision, and I could have reacted very quickly had the situation become worse.

So my long winded question... who made the better call?

[Oscar]

So my long winded question... who made the better call?

No one made a better decision than the other. Both used PIC judgement to make a decision deemed in the best interest of the flight, and both ended with a safe non-event outcome. We don't need to put ideas in guys minds out there that if they do something a certain way, it'll end up on a 7 page avcanada quarterback thread.

It's not rocket science and no standard procedure for all situations, so lets just let PICs be PICs and hopefully common sense can live on just a little bit longer in this world.

btw, congrats on handling your individual situation well. You obviously knew what you were doing, no need to doubt yourself. I would have done the same thing in your shoes. I also would have done the same thing in the NCA situation.

fly safe y'all.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally I would be very reluctant to not shut down an engine with a fire indication. I could see leaving the engine running if you where close to the ground, but in a situation where you where in cruise or descending towards an airport with basically a 100 % chance of not having to go around then I would shut it down even it I was pretty sure that it was an indicator problem. The penalty for getting that one wrong and leaving an engine running that was on fire but the smoke/flames where not readily visible to the cockpit, could be very high..........

[fish4life]

unless you have a single engine airplane I think it could be a big big mistake to not shut down an engine if you have a fire indication. I heard a stat that something like 25% of all real engine fires are not visible from the outside so who knows by the time engine fire has gotten to a point where you may see it you could have fed the fire with more fuel by keeping the engine running to the point that your aircraft is about to be completely comprimised and your wing melts off. If I wasn't on short final where it would screw up a perfectly good stabilized approach (even then I'd shut it down after touchdown) I'd shut down an engine every time you have an indication, what is the worst case thing that happens if you shut down the indicated engine without it being on fire? a cadors and SMS report you have to do, worst case scenario if you don't shut it down and it turns out to be real is you DIE. Ask the boys at AC and WJ if they would just leave it running because "its probably just an indication" and I bet every single one of them would shut it down.

[lilflyboy262]

I know the BE10's are prone to false indications while in snow or with the light shining into the cowling from the right angle.
Our first course of action is to take a real good look at that engine. Look for signs like paint blistering or warping.

[oldtimer]

I have only had one fire warning that turned out to be a false alarm but it was not a big steady red light but rather a weak intemittent blinking with less than full brilliance that went out after I slowed down. I did not shut the engine down because I was only 5 minutes from landing but in retrospect, if it ever happened again, I would shut the engine down. To this day, I still ask myself why I didn't.
One thing that always puzzles me is the emergency checklists for most turboprops. If a fire warning is recieved and the engine is shut down, nowhere do I find any mention to retest the fire warning system. In the . accident, the TSB felt the reason the fire warning went out is that the wires were burnt off. IMHO if the warning system will not test, I would consider the light still on and take whatever action is appropriate.
Just remember that you do not own a bolt in that airplane and your hide is not replaceable. Just get ATC or FSS to call the insurance provider so they can watch their assets burn with you on the sidelines as a spectator.

[swordfish]

"Check for fire?"
"Check engine indications"

ok ignore SOP and shut it down anyways....

[Nark]

Use your PIC judgement.

[swordfish]

Use your eyes.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Use your eyes.

So you are saying that you feel confident that regardless of how the fire started or where it was located that you would be able to see it from the cockpit ?

Personally I can think of several scenarios where by the time the fire was noticeable you would be potentially past the point of no return in terms of getting it to extinguish and/or already suffered potentially catastrophic damage.

[Caracrane]

Personally I can think of several scenarios where by the time the fire was noticeable you would be potentially past the point of no return in terms of getting it to extinguish and/or already suffered potentially catastrophic damage.[/quote]


Totally agree, but if not noticable and unable to sustain flight for any reason especially at night, relight the g.damn thing.

[Caracrane]

Nark, take your finger off the test switch, old joke played more than often.

[AOW]

Thank you all for the insight... My personal retrospective decision is that if I were in the same situation again, I would shut it down... The checklist does say to check for any other indications of a fire; the engine was directly out my window so I had a really good view of it; but nonetheless, if I end up in that situation again, and the fire indication persists, despite attempts to block possible sun entering the cowl, I will do a precautionary shutdown. We don't have engine fire extinguishers, so that is not an option/concern.
I like the suggestion of testing the fire detectors when they do go out.... In a similar manner, I always teach to check the annunciators following a "phantom" master caution light, just in case one light burnt out in the process of comming on!

I don't think that my decision was a wrong decision, but it may not be the best decision. I try to encourage and teach good PDM and it would be hypocritical to not practise what I preach. I also like to share various decisions that I have made (some good, some not so good) and examine them from a PDM perspective, and openly discuss pros and cons and how it could have been handled better.

[Siddley Hawker]

One thing that always puzzles me is the emergency checklists for most turboprops. If a fire warning is recieved and the engine is shut down, nowhere do I find any mention to retest the fire warning system.

We had it as part of the clean-up checklist on our airplanes. (F-27, G1 and 125)

Here's one for ya. A friend was motoring along at 14,000 with a F-27 when there was a mighty WOOOOOSSSHHHH and the right engine autofeathered. Took all of a couple of seconds. Check for fire? Yep, fire light on, bottle 1 discharge. Wait 120 seconds. Fire warning light still on, bottle 2 discharge. Wait another 120 seconds. Fire warning still on. Now what do you do? The FO went back to the cabin and could see no sign of fire, so they continued on for the remaining 80 miles to the nearest airport, which just happened to be home base. Upon inspection it was found the fire warning had been false. The reason for the autofeather by the way, was a bearing in the engine had self destructed and the impeller section moved an infinitesimal amount and began to chew itself to death.

[YWGGuy]

"Check for fire?"
"Check engine indications"

ok ignore SOP and shut it down anyways....

I do not know what type of plane you fly so it may be different for aircraft unable to maintain single engine flight.

With our SOPs ignoring SOPs would be to try and dick around and see if the problem is legit. On a fire warning we will execute the engine shut down drill and fire off the fire bottles. That IS SOP for us. No trying to see if the light is a fault or not. I personally would not feel comfortable trying to guess whether an engine fire is real or not. For me it is simple. What happens if you have a leak in your bleed lines? Would be hard to find a major engine indication or visible sign of fire. You could be writing your own death certificate by not treating the problem for real.

[swordfish]

Before you shut down an engine for a fire warning, you always check (particularly with the IR-type detectors):

• 1. Are we really on fire?
  2. Are the engine indications "normal"? i.e. are we developing the same power the other engine is, are the oil pressure and ITT indications normal? N1 speed ok? Abnormal vibration?

Secondly, if the fire was caused by an errant flash of sunlight, the fire warning disappears after the detector does not see the light, even though you have to reset the master warning. The system doesn't have to be "reset". Fire out, warning gone. This is why, with extinguishers, when you shut down for a real fire, and check before you blow a bottle unnecessarily to see if the fire has extinguished...you might really need it in a minute or 2.

Thirdly, I will be totally amazed if anyone's SOP calls for a shut-down of an engine for a WARNING, without validation. And if it DOES, I encourage every captain to not blindly follow such a mindless SOP, keep thinking, use all your resources available, and decide if you really DO need to shut down a perfectly good operating engine, as a Courtesy Air 99 did coming off Patuanak a couple of years ago.

The SOP leads you, the Captain decides. Don't blindly follow the SOP simply because it's the bible....

[fish4life]

How do you know if it is fake or real swordfish, I'm shutting down every time since single engine landings should be a non event.

[swordfish]

since single engine landings should be a non event.

You bet. At gross, in a -90 or a -99 or a -100 at Calgary...or Red Deer, on a 28° day...always a non-event. You don't even need to declare an emergency. Just land, like they did in Vancouver.