tor lives wrote:I think it is important to remember that the fundamental role of the Airport Fireys in these circumstances is not to save the aircraft, but rather suppress the fire until such times as all pax/crew have safely evacuated.
And if your are wondering where the 90 second evacuation rule comes from, (i.e. the max amount of time you have to evacuate an aircraft using only half the available doors/exits)....that's actual the anticipated "burn-through" time of the structure. From 91 seconds onwards you can fully anticipate the "orange hot stuff" getting from the outside in.
TOR
It's these "critical" times that can make the difference between surviving and not. Many years ago, I worked on a project at a paint plant. The steel structure was sprayed with a concrete like substance. Me being curious asked what it was. It was of course a heat retardant to protect the steel in the event of a fire. I was told it is there to maintain integrity of the structure during a out of control fire for up to 1 hour. Sadly, I knew this statistic when the Twin Towers were hit and I forewarned friends and family of a potential terrible outcome if the fire could not be contained within 1 hour - before the Twins collapsed that night. This kind of haunts me knowing that many if not all of those super brave fireys knew exactly this time frame they had in which to contain/control those fires.
It sure highlights that even though flying is safer than ever, one should never be complacent. I found this link out of interest to learn what is involved in a typical airliner engine fire suppression system. I'm a "systems" guy so am interested in learning about this stuff. I thought there may be some way of applying a inert "blanket" in the fuel tanks themselves, but this just must be too complicated or the chances so small of a wing explosion to make developing such a system unnecessary? Seeing a wing pretty well fully engulfed in flames would make me think it was only a few seconds away from exploding. Perhaps they are designed to fail a certain way - rupture disks for example in the fuel tanks that blow when over-pressure is experienced, thus reducing chance of structural/catastrophic failure? I guess I'm interested in the whole wing/fuel tank design that allows for a "controlled rate of failure". Anyone know anything about this - Uncle Julio?
http://okigihan.blogspot.com.au/p/boeing-777-aircraft-fire-detection-and.html
)
. And as you would know....24 hours later the whole industry is now asking the same question.
As a bum on a seat in that aircraft, I couldn't give a toss if the dude up the front has been to the moon and back doing a 1 handed hand stand talking the to the Almighty Himself. All I want him to do is pull his finger out and get me off that 
