Updated: Lufthansa aircraft makes emergency landing

Michael Walton

Oct 30th 2008, 11:19

Ms Schembri,
Smoke detectors are constantly monitored by the fire alarm system. The only external test of a smoke detector is to trigger it with real or synthetic smoke to ensure a positive indication occurs. This would not prevent a detector failing with a false positive, as would appear to have happened in this instance. As stated elsewhere it is impossible to test every single item on an aircraft every time it flies.

angie Schembri

Oct 30th 2008, 09:56

I imagine that smoke detectors ARE A PRIORITY to check every time the aircraft is in use!!!!!!!

Charles Micallef

Oct 30th 2008, 09:12

@T. Schembri

Thanking you for the precise explanation you supplied to these flight blogging engineers !

Gerard Said

Oct 30th 2008, 09:02

This might sound off topic, but phew, a civilized and polite discussion! Thank you for the interesting comments.

T. Schembri

Oct 29th 2008, 20:20

Most modern jet aircraft systems work on the principle that if they break down a warning is transmitted to the flight crew. So effectively pilots are aware before departure whether something is broken or not, if the system concerned is monitored. Modern Airbus fire warning systems are continuously checked by the aircraft's central monitoring system and I would be happy to bet that this also holds true for the A300 type, which is a slightly older model.
Furthermore, smoke warning systems are unfortunately susceptible to being falsely triggered by excessive humidity and other such things, including decaying fruit and if I recall correctly, on at least on one occasion, methane expelled by a cargoload of pigs. Thankfully, this imprecision in the system always seems to err on the side of caution, as what seems to be the case of the Lufthansa Flight.

Clive Aquilina Spagnol

Oct 29th 2008, 15:35

This will sound like a contradiction Mr Bonnici, but in the end given anything can go wrong during flight, unfortunately yes, parts which go unchecked during turnaround can also force an aircraft to land. Ideally one checks everything. I believe the distinction lies whether the consequences of a fault are immediate or delayed. If flaps go faulty, loss of lift will immediately result (when flying with flaps is required), whereas a faulty smoke detector will result in delayed consequences. It would be welcome and of great benefit to have a comment from a maintenance engineer on this issue.

A Bonnici

Oct 29th 2008, 13:48

This part looked vital enough for the plane to land in emergency. i believe that theres no such thing as "not looking at all the parts because its impossible" when you have all those people on the plane. i might be wrong but thats what i think.

Thanks for the explanation though Clive

Clive Aquilina Spagnol

Oct 29th 2008, 10:59

In a short turnaround such as the one between the Lufthansa's inbound flight from Frankfurt and its outbound to the same destination, not every piece of equipment on a plane is checked. An aircraft of this type is composed of several hundreds, if not thousands of items to be checked, and checking them all in a turnaround of more or less 50 minutes is impossible. What gets checked are more vital parts and controls of an aircraft, such as lights, flaps, ailerons, empennage etc. These on their own will guarantee a safe flight. Other items are checked according to maintenance schedules as set by the manufacturer and also the operating airline. This practise is not relevant only to Lufthansa but to the rest of the airline industry.

A Bonnici

Oct 29th 2008, 07:45

Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't security measures, such as Smoke detectors, checked before the plane actually lifts off? its not a situation of "Oops, the smoke detector broke" but it is a situation of lack of attention when examining the plane before it is ready to fly......

Im open for any comments :p

Good day