Fire at Sabena Technics

Airbuspilot · Post by **Airbuspilot** » 06 May 2006, 10:29

and my condolences to all involved

Bilboone · Post by **Bilboone** » 06 May 2006, 10:32

Atlantis wrote:I hope they will build a new and bigger hangar on the same place. The old one was smaller then the other hangars on that site.

It's not only the Hangar that is lost but also a lot of offices, medical department, training department, tooling, spareparts,.......

they will build a new advanced hangar , but I hope that they will not make the mistake again to have all these offices very near. (infact in the hangar it self )

teach · Post by **teach** » 06 May 2006, 10:41

It is definitely not an accident although this made it look like one. There is to much coincidence in this game.
Maybe some members here have some interests in hiding some facts?

You damn well better have some facts to back up those accusations. Because if you don't, realise that what you wrote there is libel, and that is illegal. If you want to escape the possibility of a lawsuit, I suggest you get on your knees and beg the moderators to remove your post.

Bilboone · Post by **Bilboone** » 06 May 2006, 10:48

Ovostar wrote:it was the SN technics main hangar ?

In fact yes, Hangar 40 is Heavy maintenance , 4 aircrafts in C-check or D-check. They have also Hangar 41 but this is for line-maintenance basically some times it is used also to do C-checks on Airbus 300 / 310 , Boeing 767 (widebody aircraft) but most of the time it used for repairs, quick-in quick-out.

Hangar 8 , one part is used for painting (I believe there is a Airbus A320 now in for painting) the other part is used also for linemaintenance but before also for C-checks , C-130 maintenance was based there in the time of Sabena, now the hangar is loaded with old timer aircraft parts and other aircraft parts but there is space for maintenance. Two 737's ( Virgin and Jetair)where in there on friday afternoon, because H41 they could not use

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 06 May 2006, 11:05

ehamspotter wrote:
fokker_f27 wrote:Are they going to build a new hangar soon?
Hello;

Yes probably, but they told on the news from 7pm that building a
new hangar would take more than two years.

rgds:Jeroen

Just saw a documentary about the Empire State Building, it was build in the 1930's (?) and it took a little over 1 year to build it...

If they hurry up it shood take less then 2 years, unless Belgian burocracy gets involved...

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 06 May 2006, 11:34

Building an hangar will not take 2 years, it's much faster. But I hope they will install some "springklers" on top of the roof.

Post by **Bottie** » 06 May 2006, 12:16

Pictures credited to Bilboone:

Pictures removed on request

Depretair · Post by **Depretair** » 06 May 2006, 12:26

Hello, I don't know if it's true but i heard yesterday at work that one of the planes had been washed with white spirit and that a spark in an éléctric system activated the fire. The pictures are really impressive. Really sad news for the airport and the companies, hope they will recover from this situation without too many problems.

morton · Post by **morton** » 06 May 2006, 12:55

Hey!

This week is quite chatotic in aviation world. I hope, we won't have the same amount of accidents like last August...(remember Helios crash and AF-340 in Canada)

Post by **Bottie** » 06 May 2006, 13:00

Atlantis wrote:Building an hangar will not take 2 years, it's much faster. But I hope they will install some "springklers" on top of the roof.

No, but it can take a very long time before there's authorization from the insurance-companies to start cleaning up and rebuild

Tommypilot · Post by **Tommypilot** » 06 May 2006, 13:04

These pictures really hurt

Respect to the firemen!!

Ivan_Eagle · Post by **Ivan_Eagle** » 06 May 2006, 13:39

hello

I went today to BRU and ofcourse to the builing to.
and saw this;

Greats Ivan

foxtrot_lima_yankee · Post by **foxtrot_lima_yankee** » 06 May 2006, 17:23

teach,

In the world of aviation, many facts are hided for the single purpose of interests. I m not accusing anyone, I m just telling you, things are not always as you are told they are.

The thing is that when an airplane crashes, many dollars might be lost. And weither the report of the accident has an impact on the airline or the insurance company is known thanks to accident reports, written by the local aviation authorities.

If a smaller national-scale insurance company covers an airline company, a single crash could make sure the insurance company will make losses throwing it nearly into bankruptcy.

Let s now go back to the situations of this accident.
To respond to my question: "How could an iron structure get to burn so hard?" someone told us that jetfuel might be involved. I do not agree with this, as jetfuel is pulled out before starting to perform the maintenance, for evident reasons of security. This also explains the fact that the airplanes did not explode during this fire.
It is true that other chemical products might have been in the hangar, causing the fire to spread. According to the newsstations, an aircraft is told to have been treated with white spirit.

I m only afraid we will never know the truth laying behind this accident.

Post by **ElcoB** » 06 May 2006, 17:35

"How could an iron structure get to burn so hard?"

From what I once withnessed of a factory fire : when it is hot enough, the paint on the iron structure started to burn, further heatening the structure to a level it looses its strenght , start to bend and finally collapse.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 06 May 2006, 17:36

When you look close to the pictures, it seems that the fire started in the offices. You see the fire true the windows while in the hangar is no fire. The second picture gave the same situation but there you see on the right site a big fire in the hangar.

So, we have to wait on the results, but it's a little bit confusing.

The other problem is that we don't see the correct numbered consecutively.

teach · Post by **teach** » 06 May 2006, 17:46

I m not accusing anyone, I m just telling you, things are not always as you are told they are.

When you say that this was, quote, "DEFINATELY", not an accident, that's an accusation. You last post clearly tells me that you indeed do not have even the slightest bit of evidence to back your accusation up and were, in fact, talking out of your rear-end. I therefore stand by my post more than ever.

Rago · Post by **Rago** » 06 May 2006, 17:53

foxtrot_lima_yankee wrote:
I m not accusing anyone, I m just telling you, .

Short of memory F_L_Y? It seems to me you were accusing BIAC they've been instructing the fire-department to "let it burn completely down"

You're telling us? Before you're "telling" something, you have to be sure to be able to prove what you're "telling". Until now I mainly saw "Kakpraat" from a bunch of self-declared experts.

Teach was making a point in saying people have to watch out with what they're "telling" to other people, because you're risking a lot in making such a statement.
Why are the so-called "serious sources" sharing their "reliable" info only with some aviation enthusiasts and not with the officials? Maybe their info isn't that "reliable"as you think? Something to think about?

TUB023 · Post by **TUB023** » 06 May 2006, 17:56

ElcoB wrote:
"How could an iron structure get to burn so hard?"

From what I once withnessed of a factory fire : when it is hot enough, the paint on the iron structure started to burn, further heatening the structure to a level it looses its strenght , start to bend and finally collapse.

that is correct. where i work (truck body repair shop, creating chassis and loading boxes for it) we use iron to and somethimes we heat it up just to bend it. though it needs a high temperature to bend... it eventually will.

foxtrot_lima_yankee · Post by **foxtrot_lima_yankee** » 06 May 2006, 18:33

I agree with that.
Paint is flammable at certain temperatures, though there should be, I think, strict regulations for the paint used in such structures as a maintenance hangar.

For those who do not have the chance of watching belgian tv-news, the fire happened half an hour after the end of the evening-shift.
Heavy maintenance is a day-work.
It is told that 2 SN technics workers were still in the hangar. One of them was badly injured.

It won t surprise me when BIAC ordered the hangar to burn out, even though the data laying in the office in SN Technics could be saved. An impredicted explosion might have occured, which could have lead to losses of firemen staff. BIAC did the right thing here, as safety is primordial.

Atlantis metionned the information regarding BIAC and the firebrigade, not me.
I m just trying to find some room for debates. That is the purpose of an internet forum.
Please make sure who you are quoting, and read the text twice before answering.
To Ovostar: Where the hell did I mention that Armavia owned only 2 A320s?
Aren t 2 crashes in 1 week for a same small airline worth debating about?

foxtrot_lima_yankee · Post by **foxtrot_lima_yankee** » 06 May 2006, 18:39

Excuse my inadequate terminology.
2 accidents instead of 2 crashes.

teach, never heard of freedom of speech? I m not accusing anyone. The Cold war is over, buddy

Aviation24.be

Fire at Sabena Technics

Causes