British Airways Incident at Johannesburg

[Craggenmore]

this is why the 380 has OANS...............................

Pre-Xmas nightstop-cheer followed by get-there-itis....I've been on enough BA nightstops to have seen this first hand. Sick bags on taxi out..?

SEP has been bashing on about this for years.

[Rail Engineer]

"Avtur is not Avgas / petrol. It is really quite hard work to ignite, does not explode when in liquid form."

Just to support that.


When I was on Operations in BR I worked in an area where we had various oil refineries and terminals and a very heavy traffic of aviation fuel trains.


The wagons were owned/leased by the Oil companies and sometimes maintenance was not as we would have wished, so from time to we would have 100 tonne tank wagons with burning axle-boxes or binding brakes creating flames around the bogie.


Experience dictated that the loaded wagons were not the ones to worry about, that was left for the unloaded ones whose tanks were filled with vapour and fumes !


It is actually very hard to set fire to aviation fuel, unless and until the fuel is mixed with a high air content...if that makes sense. Then the situation reverses, hence why I hated going to incidents of empty tank trains "on fire".

[alanwoodie]

Evacuation from B747 at Johannesburg

As an ex Cabin service director on wide bodied aircraft, including B747 & B777 aircraft, I have found it interesting to read comments made about evacuation from the B747 incident in Johannesburg
Many of the comments have been frivolous and not understanding of the situation.
The situation was not catastrophic at the time of the incident, and did not develop into a catastrophe.
From unconfirmed reports , there was no fire, nothing to initiate a full blown evacuation.
The flight deck crew and cabin crew initiated an evacuation in the situation that they had been trained for.

[bluepilot]

Having ordered and seen the consequence of an evacuation many years ago I think this crew made a sound decision not to put their passengers at additional risk. In the case I was involved with there was smoke and fumes and so we had to assume a fire, therefore the choice was easy. However the aftermath was a real eye opener! Thankfully there were no major injuries (very lucky), but there were grown men crying people in shock etc and scattered everywhere, do not underestimate the risks of a full evacuation.

As to the reason for the incident in the first place let the authorities carry out their investigation. I am sure this crew are under enough stress at the moment re living the incident and questioning themselves (If only I had...etc). Judgements from armchair critics who do not know the full facts will not help further the interests of flight safety.

[framer]

this is why the 380 has OANS......

That doesn't always help. An EK A-380 taxied straight past the taxiway they wanted and onto one that was rated only for 70 Tonne in YBBN recently.
Similar incident to this actually but with less dire consequences.

[FLCH]

but there were grown men crying people in shock etc

Never done the evac, they stayed on board but landings .... This is the norm for my efforts

Now back to our regular programming bashing 😃

[Rail Engineer]

Originally Posted by bluepilot

Having ordered and seen the consequence of an evacuation many years ago I think this crew made a sound decision not to put their passengers at additional risk. In the case I was involved with there was smoke and fumes and so we had to assume a fire, therefore the choice was easy. However the aftermath was a real eye opener! Thankfully there were no major injuries (very lucky), but there were grown men crying people in shock etc and scattered everywhere, do not underestimate the risks of a full evacuation.

As to the reason for the incident in the first place let the authorities carry out their investigation. I am sure this crew are under enough stress at the moment re living the incident and questioning themselves (If only I had...etc). Judgements from armchair critics who do not know the full facts will not help further the interests of flight safety.

Although speaking from a railway perspective I agree totally.


You would NOT believe how many people there are out there walking around with latent health issues that they are either ignoring or are receiving treatment for. Inevitably there will be a number of these people involved and from many train evacuation scenarios I can assure you that you will almost always end up with a requirement fro emergency ambulances being called to remove people to hospital. and remember that can be from something as simple as walking passengers through the train, out through the driving cab and down onto the emergency walkway into the nearest station.


Evacuating an a/c has a multitude or far greater risks than the evacuations I have carried out and as a frequent flyer myself, I believe that the crew did the correct thing.


The sad thing I see as I get older is that as safety becomes "more professional" (so to speak !) it becomes more of a tick in the box procedural exercise with flow chart actions which by virtue cannot recognise the individual factors applicable to each situation. Safety should allow for professionals to exercise final judgement, and not be simplified for the purpose of making someone else's life easier or for administrative ease.


Knee-jerk "must evacuate immediately" procedures (and comments) should have no place in safe a/c operation. Each scenario is different and procedures should allow for judgement and discretion to be exercised by those who are properly trained and versed in all the issues and the risks.

[BalusKaptan]

Rail Eng.
Here Here!
Absolutely right.

[Romeo E.T.]

on the issue of evacuate or not, about 200m behind where the B747 came to a stop, is a satellite Fire station at JNB, and these crew would have heard the sound of the building being ripped apart, and would have been on scene within a short space of time.
so short a space of time, that it would have been equivalent to the time taken by the flight deck crew to evaluate (with liaison from Cabin crew due to not being able to see the extent of the damage), and by the time the flight deck had evaluated the situation, the first fire crew would have been on scene already to assist in the decision making model.

that being said, if it was assessed as catastrophic or imminent outbreak of fire, then an evacuation would have been sensible and prudent, as the main fire base is in the centre-field, and would have taken a while longer to get on scene.

but as it turns out, apart from 4 ground staff injured, hurt pride, material damages, all turned out OK in the end.

[Check Airman]

Briefing the taxi route

I find it curious that so many posters have mentioned briefing the taxi route. At my company, very few people brief the expected taxi route. I'm not one of them. Unless you're addressing a specific threat, it really doesn't add much value. What happens when you've briefed A B C, and you're assigned X Y Z?

[ExSp33db1rd]

What kind of danger is involved in an evacuation please?

As above... + potentially paralysis

plus the chance of being run over by a fire truck, or any of the many vehicles that will be milling around in the dark.

The escape slide experience isn't a fairground ride.

It "appears" that there was no evidence, or immediate danger, of a fire, ( tho' of course I wasn' there ) so sit back, have another drink Sir, nobody's going anywhere in a hurry.

[PukinDog]

Check Airman
I find it curious that so many posters have mentioned briefing the taxi route. At my company, very few people brief the expected taxi route. I'm not one of them. Unless you're addressing a specific threat, it really doesn't add much value. What happens when you've briefed A B C, and you're assigned X Y Z?

Including the expected taxi route in your pre-starting/close-out brief while there are no other distractions/duties/cockpit chores establishes orientation as well as forces at least a basic familiarization of taxiway(s) to expect, the need to cross (or not) cross a runaway(s), etc. It's a ground floor step in keeping situational awareness once you're moving when there are distractions, and puts both pilots in the loop to begin with. There are plenty of pilots out there that aren't going to the same 10 airports for the month, or year, or decade. Many times at least one person in the cockpit is unfamiliar with the "usual" operations, this familiarizes them beforehand. In your company if you don't brief, when you get a new pilot on line, how do you even know he/she has any idea as to where they are or going, even in a general way?

Doing so also places an emphasis of the importance of the taxi phase from the start. It heightens awareness and is a reminder to remain vigilant. More incidents/accidents occur during this phase than on missed approaches, and yet you probably brief the missed approach religiously. Why brief the missed approach even though the chart and text is right there in front of you. You do it because it familiarizes and emphasizes the notion/reminder that "Every approach includes the missed approach. Landing is a bonus".

What do you do if/when your taxi clearance is changed? Well, what do you do if you get an amended departure procedure as you taxi out that's different from the clearance you relieved at the ramp? What do you do if they change approach procedures after you've briefed a different one? If you're arriving and you already have an awareness they may change your approach and you've talked about it, there's usually no confusion or drama involved at all. Taxiing is no different.

Related to the above, if it has changed and you're familiar with the alternatives, it will alert you more quickly to a completely bogus clearance. Controllers have been known to mix up Flight/tail #s with aircraft. If you're given a taxi clearance that has a route nowhere near where you are, it won't take a lot of figuring out it was meant for another aircraft somewhere on the field. No biggie if nobody's moving, but if they are underway and need the clearance you erroneously received quickly, sorting out that confusion in a timely manner may save someone some big grief.

This (establishing and maintaining SA during taxi) was talked about and emphasized during the big push years ago to reduce runway incursions. It was found that often the taxi phase was given short shrift in thought and deed just because our wheels are on the ground. Even if it isn't a phase of flight, it's still at least 2 phases of our operation for every sector and airmanship still applies. Hopefully these lessons haven't been forgotten so quickly.

[SMOC]

Many mistakes are made by crew pre briefing an expected taxi route and then hearing what they briefed (confirmation bias) but hopefully caught by a watchful ATC or another crew member.

I'm not a huge fan of the pre briefed taxi, as some just rattle it off and don't think about the route itself. If taxiing is going to be a threat at least discuss something about where those threats are and what you expect to do to mitigate them.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by misd-agin

Picture was taken from a 737.
747 eye height is significantly higher and provides better S.A.

Picture was taken in Daylight.

747 eye height at night provides worse S.A.

[skytrax]

No grounds for emergency evacuation. Pax in no imediate danger, no fire ar smoke present.

I belive they did a precautionary disembarkation, which is the apropiate action to take in such situation. You get the pax out while you monitor the outside conditions, shoud the conditions deterioarate you can order evacuation.

[Capt Groper]

Wing Tip Proximity Sensors?

What's the best Wing Tip sensors on the market?
Must buy some shares!

[PukinDog]

SMOC
Many mistakes are made by crew pre briefing an expected taxi route and then hearing what they briefed (confirmation bias) but hopefully caught by a watchful ATC or another crew member.

If that's the case, then this confirmation bias exists for any other type of brief you give (departure, approach, missed approach), since clearances can be changed at any time. The reason we talk about confirmation bias is so we are aware and on guard for it, not as a reason to not plan ahead or talk about it.

I'm not a huge fan of the pre briefed taxi, as some just rattle it off and don't think about the route itself. If taxiing is going to be a threat at least discuss something about where those threats are and what you expect to do to mitigate them.

If those people are just rattling it off and not thinking about it, chances are they're doing it with every other brief as well. Discussing threats and traps as part of the brief was covered in post #222, it's the primary reason for doing it in the first place.

It's required by many companies' SOPs. If it's not by yours and you're not a big fan of it despite what's been said, well, take it or leave it. Nobody here is your mother who's going to tell you how to best maintain vigilance and SA with both crew in the loop when cockpit duties/chores/communication during taxi can split the crew attention. Like I said in the first place, I'm interested if the investigation finds whether or not there was a briefing given re taxi route to the runway before and/or after clearance was received, what kind of distractions (if any) were going on, and why the breakdown of SA occurred and why wasn't it recognized before impact?

[SMOC]

If that's the case, then this confirmation bias exists for any other type of brief you give (departure, approach, missed approach), since clearances can be changed at any time. The reason we talk about confirmation bias is so we are aware and on guard for it, not as a reason to not plan ahead or talk about it.

Good luck with that, if you've ever flown in China you better plan to brief every taxiway on the airport!

[BOAC]

I think PD means to brief the RELEVANT bits, not every twist and turn?

If it wasn't already, you can bet your bottom dollar this 'trap' will be in the BA Jo'burg brief.

[SMOC]

Ever flown to china? please explain how your would brief the relevant bits

All I'm saying is a blanket statement of briefing taxi plans is not always practical so I can see Check Airman's point, going through the motions as part of an SOP knowing full well that the taxi instructions are very fluid and unlikely to be "as briefed" is pointless. It's probably to do with the fact that I'm flying in Asia where the obvious taxi instructions are rarely given.