tommygun32

Full Story: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/59720...e-on-ups-plane


Lithium batteries are believed to have contributed to the cockpit fire that broke out in the UPS plane that crashed in Dubai earlier this month, crash investigation sources have said.

The news is likely to lead to new restrictions on their transport and packaging are likely to be introduced by US authorities, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

US investigators are currently analysing the cause of the crash and have yet to reveal their findings. However, sources told the paper that lithium batteries may have stoked the intense fire and dense smoke that filled the cockpit of the UPS Boeing 747 aircraft, which crashed in Dubai on September 3 and killed both pilots onboard.

The report added that the implications are likely to result in US officials introducing new measures to restrict the transport of large quantities of lithium batteries on US cargo planes. Sources told the WSJ that the UPS plane, which originated in Hong Kong and was flying from Dubai to Germany, had large amounts of consumer electronics aboard.

The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) from the aircraft was recovered from the crash site on September 4, approximately six hours after the accident and the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) was recovered on September 7 “in a reasonable condition,� the UAE General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) said.

The two recorders were then sent to the US for analysis, along with one UAE investigator, to work on data recovery, the GCAA said in a statement on September 13.

The US Department of Transportation spokeswoman, the US Federal Aviation Administration and UPS all declined to comment in the WSJ report.

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

If true, that could mean trouble for imported batteries. Slow boat from china comes to mind.

tommygun32

That's the one worry I have that could effect this hoppy, not to mention all the cell phones, laptops, and everything else that uses LiPo's.

However, I'm more interested in a) how did the fire start and b) does anyone have any NTSB (or other agency) findings on what caused this to happen.

I'm already hearing rumors that the smoke and heat in the cockpit was so bad, that the flight crew weren't even in their seats when the plane came down.

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

This all the NTSB has up so far. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...10RA092&rpt=fa

david

tommygun32

Thank you Dave.

tommygun32

Another reason I'm interested in this.....

Charlie P.

So, was it cargo being carried in the cabin or batteries in use in cabin? Fire from the cargo hold of a battery shipment that spread? If it was a "cockpit fire" it didn't start in the cargo hold. Reporters shouldn't rely on Google.

Unfortunate to lose two pilots to a fire in any event. But if a laptop overheated that's not a transporting fault, that's an equipment failure.

scottrc

My thoughts as well. Our government is too quick to start regulating before knowing the root cause. In turn this knee jerk regulating hurts commerece and the economy.

Bruno Stachel

My Feedback: (4)

So far nothing indicates a cockpit fire. UPS's airplane health system indicated a fire just forward of the right wing. Investigators are checking, and may have already confirmed, if lithium-ion batteries were placed in that area of the cargo hold. In any case, it's too soon to judge.

tommygun32

Thank you gents. Is there a web site I can go to to see updated reports?

50+AirYears

Just remember that it can take a considerable time for the evaluation to come up with the probable reason(s). Until then, everything is just speculation. And as far as what early speculation and news rumors can do:

Sometime 1978-79 a DC-10 lost an engine on takeoff. Lots of people died, not just those on the plane. Initial speculation was that the DC 10 was defective. This caused a lot of problems for McDonnel-Douglas. I seem to remember that there was even some attempt to blame the flight crew, even though they apparently followed the best known emergency procedures.

Several years later, the results of the accident investigation showed the airplane was not to blame. The cause was that the airline was trying to do a cost reduction and eliminate a number of man-hours involved in engine change by ignoring the procedures developed by M-D and the engine mfgs. This caused cracks in the engine mounts. The entire fleet was grounded for inspection, and while other airlines that followed proper procedures had a small number of minor mount cracks, the particular airline almost needed major repairs on all their DC-10s.

Speculation is often just a waste of time.