Cathay evacuation injuries

[DaveReidUK]

South ChinaMorning Post reporting that 11 pax were injured during an evacuation following an RTO at Hong Kong earlier today:

11 injured evacuating Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong, after tyre allegedly bursts and take-off aborted

[Equivocal]

So the aircraft taxied back on to stand and then evacuated via some of the slides. I guess there is more to this...or it seems to be rather odd.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Equivocal

So the aircraft taxied back on to stand and then evacuated via some of the slides. I guess there is more to this...or it seems to be rather odd.

Certainly looks like it. The 777 was back at the gate (adjacent to the one from which it had pushed) 10 minutes after the start of the takeoff roll.

[Iknowhighschoolmath]

Cathy Pacific 777 CX880 rejected take off at 154 knots

Isn't this a flagrant violation of take off rules? Sorry, layman here.

​

[dixi188]

Don't know any details but up to V1 speed you can reject a take-off. It's not unusual for V1 to be above 154 knots on a big twin.

[josephfeatherweight]

Rumour has it (and this IS a rumour site) that the CSM (or whatever it's called at Cathay) overheard the pilots talking about a brake fire, which was a result of the RTO, and then self-initiated the evac.
But - that's just the rumour I heard...

[rob_ginger]

Can anyone comment on the overwing exit slide in #3? It looks like a 4-5 metre almost vertical drop to me! Is that "as designed"? Does selecting flaps 40 make that a more reasonable angle of slide? I'd be very reluctant to jump down from that height.
Also, the South China Morning Post article has a picture of the main gear, and the three outer left tyres are all deflated, so obviously brakes got pretty hot. Can't see any of the other tyres clearly.

[goeasy]

That sounds more feasible than evac initiated by PIC... I hope so for his/her sake.

[Pearly White]

Originally Posted by rob_ginger

Can anyone comment on the overwing exit slide in #3? It looks like a 4-5 metre almost vertical drop to me! Is that "as designed"? Does selecting flaps 40 make that a more reasonable angle of slide? I'd be very reluctant to jump down from that height.
Also, the South China Morning Post article has a picture of the main gear, and the three outer left tyres are all deflated, so obviously brakes got pretty hot. Can't see any of the other tyres clearly.

Assuming you would probably expect and notice a brake over temperature warning after a hot/heavy RTO, why would you taxi back to the gate? Would it not be better to get ARFF to monitor/cool the gear, before taxiing the steaming heap back to the terminal?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by rob_ginger

Can anyone comment on the overwing exit slide in #3? It looks like a 4-5 metre almost vertical drop to me! Is that "as designed"?

Looks like camera foreshortening to me.

[Teddy Robinson]

Weird one this.

1) High speed abort, stop clear of the active, don't set the parking brake and wait for the AFFS, once they have done their thing and a PA or two later, resume journey back to the gate .... or thats what I was taught.

2) So having omitted step 1 and the rejected takeoff checklist, and taxied bravely to the gate with the fuse plugs doing what they are designed to do (See wait for AFFS once clear of the runway), and presumably no PA, a SCC member takes the initiative to call the evacuation.
Having sat through a career full of mixed CRM sessions, there are certainly scenarios where this is appropriate, but there are plenty of others where it is not.

We took time to discuss the checklists and other stuff which has to be done after a high speed abort, along with the cabin call at 1000 feet out of LCY when we were actually too busy to respond, but some people just don't get the message and it's monkey see monkey do.

I dunno, this is all most peculiar, and seems to point to some low time appointees ignoring conventions.

Happy flying TR

[megan]

Signs of a demoralised work force perhaps if the Fragrant Harbour forum is any guide.