In-flight cabin smoke control.

Abstract

Fatal accidents originating from in-flight cabin fires comprise only about 1% of all fatal accidents in the civil jet transport fleet. Nevertheless, the impossibility of escape during flight accentuates the hazards resulting from low visibility and toxic gases. Control of combustion products in an aircraft cabin is affected by several characteristics that make the aircraft cabin environment unique. The aircraft fuselage is pressurized in flight and has an air distribution system which provides ventilation jets from the ceiling level air inlets running along the cabin length. A fixed quantity of ventilation air is metered into the cabin and air discharge is handled primarily by pressure controlling outflow valves in the rear lower part of the fuselage. Earlier airplane flight tests on cabin smoke control used generators producing minimally buoyant smoke products that moved with and served as a telltales for overall cabin ventilation flows. Analytical studies were done with localized smoke production to predict the percent of cabin length that would remain smoke-free during continuous generation. Development of a buoyant smoke generator allowed simulation of a fire plume with controllable simulated temperature and heat release rates. Tests on a Boeing 757, modified to allow smoke venting out through the top of the cabin, showed that the buoyant smoke front moved at 0.46m/s (1.5ft/sec) with and 0.27m/sec (0.9ft/sec) against, the axial ventilation airflow. Flight tests in a modified Boeing 727 showed that a ceiling level counterflow of about 0.55m/sec (1.8ft/sec) was required to arrest the forward movement of buoyant smoke. A design goal of 0.61m/s (2ft/sec) axial cabin flow would require a flow rate of 99m3/min (3500ft3/min) in a furnished Boeing 757. The current maximum fresh air cabin ventilation flow is 78m3/min (2756 ft3/min). Experimental results indicate that buoyancy effects cause smoke movement behaviour that is not predicted by traditional design analyses and flight test methodologies. Augmenting available ventilation for smoke control remains a design and safety challenge.