UPS Flight 1307

Case Study

DC-8 with Onboard Fire

Philadelphia International Airport

February 7, 2006

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

UPS Flight 1307

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Historical Aviation Accident Review

• UPS Airlines Flt. 1307 , PHL, Philadelphia, PA

• The following information was taken from the “NTSB SurvivalFactors/Airport And Emergency Response Group Chairman’s FactualReport, Docket NO. SA-228 EXHIBIT NO. 16A”

Summary:

• On February 7, 2006, at 2359 (EST), a Douglas DC-8-71F, N748UP, operatedby United Parcel Service Company (UPS) as flight 1307, landed atPhiladelphia International Airport (PHL), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, afterthe crew reported a cargo smoke indication. The three flightcrewmembers were able to evacuate the airplane using the L1 slide. Firesubsequently caused substantial damage to the airplane and numerouscargo containers on board. The three crewmembers received minorinjuries.

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Presented as Excellent Case Study

• There was no loss of life.

• The incident has been used by the aviation industry tohighlight the need for ARFF Training on cargo aircraft.

• The Philadelphia Fire Department has taken the lead ineffecting change. The PHL Chief has lectured extensively atARFF venues to raise awareness to the lessons learned. PHLhas developed a unique database to serve as a tactical tool forIncident Commanders, providing data they needed, but couldnot obtain on the day of the incident.

• The benefit of the efforts of the Philadelphia Fire Department,specifically the ARFF Chief are now becoming apparent.

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Fire Control Time

According to the City of Philadelphia Fire Department FCCdispatch logs, ARFF arrived at the accident site at 2359 localtime. A period of 4 hours and 8 minutes elapsed from theinitial arrival on scene to the time the incident commanderradioed to dispatch for fire control (e.g., fire under control)(at 0407 local time).

(Editorial Comment) A control period of 4 hours is the firstprinted indication that the selected tactics were noteffective.

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Fire Conditions On-Scene

When ARFF vehicle arrived on-scene, no fire wasvisible, but smoke could be seen coming from the open L1 doorand the outflow vent in the tail. The first indication of visibleflame came when firefighters opened the right over wingemergency hatch. Flames were observed rolling on the fuselageceiling over the tops of the cargo containers. Smoke beganemanating from all open exits. All fire was located aft of the overwing exits toward the aft bulkhead. Burn through of the fuselageroof occurred at several locations between the trailing edge of thewing, aft toward the tail.

(Editorial Comments)

• No signs of significant fire, No blistering of paint, No visibledeformity to the skin

• Based on the smoke report, a containable volume of fire, Firstaction was to open an over wing hatch which introduced oxygen

A similar level of effort may have been able to secure the open L-1 door, cutting off thesource of oxygen. Now Studying New Tactics

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Firefighting Strategy

The ARFF units surrounded the airplane and a water attack wasordered. Access to the main cargo area was obtained via the rightover wing doors, and an exterior hand line attack was initiatedfrom this location. Turret streams were applied into the R4doorway while a Snozzle piercing operation was conducted onthe left side.

The piercing operation began behind the left aft over wing exit, in linewith the windows, and continued aft toward the tail. The entireoperation switched to a foam attack. Eventually hand lines wereadvanced to the interior of the airplane through the R4 and leftside over wing doors until total extinguishment was completed.

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Firefighting Strategy

(Editorial Comments)• Streams were not effective in controlling fire, based on control time.

• If water directed to top of the fuselage, of which doors had been secured,metal could be kept cool. Cool metal does not melt.

• Reaction to water as it flows over metal is an excellent method ofevaluating temperatures inside the aircraft. If water immediately turnsto steam, in an area of the fuselage roof, that is area directly over fire.

• As time goes on and the fire uses available oxygen, amount of heat onfuselage roof should diminish and size of heated area of fuselage maydiminish (good indicator of effectiveness).

• As outside resources arrive, aerial platform could be positioned tomonitor activity and report conditions to Command Post. ThermalImaging Camera (TIC) would be excellent tool to be used in monitoringposition.

UPS – DC-8 – Load and BalanceConsiderations

Piercing Tactics

Piercing Effects on Load and Balance

250 GPM = 1 Ton per Minute

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Hazmat Information Exchange

• Multiple Efforts / Conflicting Info– Unable to locate NOTOC

– Firefighter threw NOTC out of Aircraft ??

– UPS kept some of the contents, passed on therest?

– Ops tried to flag down

UPS Officials.

Resolution in Progress

ARFF Professional Services LLCwww.APSSafety.net

Hazmat Information Exchange

(Editorial Comments)

• Hazmat onboard was not a significant hazard to responders or theairport community.

• There was a greater danger created by the burning of aircraftcomponents than by what might have been onboard.

• The report would seem to indicate that a significant level of effort andtime was committed to tracking down the NOTOC.

• The conflicting reports would seem to suggest that all information wasnot being routed through the Command Post

Progress Made……..

• FAA Advisory Circular 150-5210/17B“Programs for Training of Aircraft Rescue andFirefighting Personnel” 9/23/2009

• (2) Aircraft familiarization. For air carrier andair cargo operations, the program should trainpersonnel such that they are able to do thefollowing: a-g

More Progress………..

• New Advisory Circular – HRET Operations,Proficiency / Performance Qualification

More Progress…

• FAA Sponsored ARFF Training DVD’s

– Introduction to ARFF (Nearly Complete)

– Cargo Aircraft (In Progress)

• Includes HRET

• Cargo Doors

• Cargo Aircraft Configuration

• Forcible Entry

• Tactics and Strategy

Methods and TrainingExercise & Filming Mojave Desert 11/09

Window Removal

Methods and Training

Identify areas to avoid and find cut in areas, rivet lines / sand if necessary

Methods and Training

High Visibility Pink Identified Structural Lines

Methods and Training

Safety Lime Green Identified Cut In Areas, 16 inch Diamond Blade Circular Rescue Saw

Methods and Training

Top Cut First, Full Thickness, Cross Vertical Line – Most Difficult, Working Above Shoulders

Methods and Training

Second Cut, Bottom, Leave Sides Until Last To Keep Saw From Binding on Bottom Cut

Methods and Training

Missing Windows Serve as Hand Holds, Final Cuts on Sides

Methods and Training

Piece Removed, 17 Minutes Total

Second Method

Making Holes to Insert Spreader Tips

Second Method

Using Spreaders to Rip Skin

Second Method

Using Battery Operated Sawsall to Cut Structural Members

Second Method

Slower, Harder Work, Sharp Jagged Opening, But It Works!

ARFF Data Base Project

• February 7, 2006 – UPS 1307 – PHL Airport

• NTSB Safety Recommendation A-07-110 to theCargo Airline Association (CAA)

“Work with your member airlines and othergroups such as the ATA, major aircraftmanufacturers, and the ARFF WorkingGroup, to develop and disseminate accurateand complete airplane Emergency Responsediagrams for ARFF personnel at airports withcargo operations.”

Data Base Development

• Request for support through membershiporganizations– PHL ARFF – Development of prototype

– Richmond ARFF – Expansion into Version 1.1

– Memphis ARFF – Full implementation version

• Webinars

• Conference Presentations

• Additional Presentations – DOD - ALPA - ATA –NTSB

Partnerships that Make a Difference!

We Need You to Be Part of It!

Demonstration