BA 777 evacuates at KORD

[weasil]

British Airways flight evacuated at O'Hare
October 5, 2008 at 2:36 PM | Comments (0)

The Chicago Fire Department is checking out a British Airways Boeing 777 that diverted to O'Hare International Airport at about 1:20 p.m. today when the pilot reported an unknown problem aboard, according to a spokesman for the city's Department of Aviation.

All passengers aboard the London-to-Houston flight were evacuated from the plane, which landed at 1:45 p.m. on runway 32-left, and there were no injuries, according to the spokesman.

It was unknown how many passengers were aboard.

-- Jeff Long, Chicago Tribune
British Airways flight evacuated at O'Hare - Chicago Breaking News (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/british-airways-flight-evacuated-at-ohare.html)

[Hotel Mode]

BA195 LHR-IAH?

Non story, left ORD 2 hrs after landing, so clearly no evacuation.

[BlueRay]

This is not a non news story, B777 declared emergency following a fire onboard. This propmpted a full emergency response including a Hazardous material response, due to the aircrafts payload.


Can anyone else shed some light on what Haz Material may have been on board?:ok:


A Chicago Department of Aviation spokesman says British Airways flight 195 was headed to Houston from London when, reportedly, a small fire broke out on board.
The Boeing 777 landed safely, and passengers deplaned on the tarmac. The fire also triggered a hazardous materials response.

No one was hurt in the incident. As of Sunday evening, there had been no word on when or how passengers would get to their final destination.

[M.Mouse]

I am led to believe from a colleague in the know that this maybe Nuclear materials,

Absolute tripe.

[BlueRay]

OK smarty what is it? And don't tell me that nuclear material never gets transported on civil aircraft!

Just read the following:

Looking For Info On South African Airways 295 Crash (1987) — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2409171/)

[BeechNut]

As a former Radiation Safety Officer and certified IATA dangerous goods specialist, I can assure you that radioactive materials do regularly get carried aboard passenger aircraft. There are of course proper packaging, handling and documentation procedures to be followed.

The materials are generally things like medical isotopes, isotopes used in industrial processes (weight and thickness measurements), and research materials.

Nothing controversial here.

[Cough]

Beechnut - We all know that its legal and safe, just that BA doesn't by policy.

Thats how M.Mouse can say what he did!

[Witraz]

Blueray:
Yes the SAA accident leaves unanswered questions, but I did see the recovered sections from this accident. The pallet on fire had the remains of computers, trainers and tennis rackets.......................Like everyone no-one knows what caused the fire but there are certainly enough conspiracy theories to write a volume of books on this accident.

If the NOTOC states dangerous goods are being carried this needs to be relayed to ATC in the event an Emergency Diversion to give the Fire Fighters an idea on what they may be having to deal with. Also hopefully any dangerous goods being carried have been packed and loaded in accordance with the ICAO rules and regulations.

Link to document for those not aware of the regulations.

Carriage of Dangerous Goods Manual ? Regulatory environment (http://www.hse.gov.uk/cdg/manual/regenvirnment.htm)

[L337]

Taken from the BBC news story.

BA said the smell had been caused by a fault with an in-flight TV screen.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7653920.stm)

[wobble2plank]

BA policy is not to carry any IATA labeled radioactive/nuclear materials even if they have been cleared for carriage on commercial passenger revenue flights.

That's not saying BA can't it means they won't. (Thats what GSS is for.)

Cause was a smell of burning caused by a short in the IFE system.

[Swedish Steve]

smell of burning caused by a short in the IFE system.

I wonder if there is any analysis of how many emergencies are caused by the IFE system failing. I seem to read about it every week. Perhaps the cost of all that electronics under the seat being kicked by passengers will be too much when one day one of these IFE fires brings down an aircraft!

[JW411]

I thought it was an IFE fire that brought down the Swissair MD-11?

[M.Mouse]

Thats how M.Mouse can say what he did!

What really annoyed me was quoting 'I am led to believe from a colleague in the know' when clearly that colleague clearly wasn't.

I note that part of the post has now been removed, funny old thing.

If the NOTOC states dangerous goods are being carried this needs to be relayed to ATC in the event an Emergency Diversion to give the Fire Fighters an idea on what they may be having to deal with. Also hopefully any dangerous goods being carried have been packed and loaded in accordance with the ICAO rules and regulations.

Precisely what happened.

[brakedwell]

I thought it was an IFE fire that brought down the Swissair MD-11?

Me too, an IFE wiring fire in the forward fuselage roof.

[groundbum]

that the BA flight had about 90 passengers onboard, according to the BBC news report. This surely can't be profitable? Is this indicative of the state of the economy? I know it's only one flight out of hundreds daily, but then BA don't publish daily load stats to the public do they!

G

[747-436]

that the BA flight had about 90 passengers onboard, according to the BBC news report. This surely can't be profitable? Is this indicative of the state of the economy? I know it's only one flight out of hundreds daily, but then BA don't publish daily load stats to the public do they!

I have heard that the Houston route doesn't normally have large amounts of passengers onboard. What it does have is lots of high paying business passengers so still makes money out of relativly few passengers compared to other flights.

[Artificial Horizon]

Thats right, without the lucrative oil contracts I doubt that Houston would be a regular destination with BA. The fact that only 90 pax on board is not such a big deal when all of those 90 are a mix of 1st and business class, not saying that was the case here, but this is generally true on this particular route i.e not great numbers but a high proportion or premium traffic.

[TopBunk]

There is of course the fact that a hurricane went through the area about 3 weeks ago with the resultant damage (both physical and to tourism).

For sure though, the oil industry is the main driver for the route which is why for a while they operated IAH via DTW? from LHR until the open skies changes allowed them to move the route to LHR (it was the first flight they moved), which always generates better results than LGW flights.

[williewalsh]

Ill think youll find BA has a track record of carrying radioactive materiel. Ask Mr Litvenenko and his mates.:E:ok:

[apaddyinuk]

It would appear that the emergency was declared as a result of a seat fire. So suppose we will have to keep the nuclear conspiracy for another day! lol

[Human Factor]

I am led to believe from a colleague in the know that this maybe Nuclear materials

BA does not carry radioactive material and hasn't done so for many years.

[weasil]

Non story, left ORD 2 hrs after landing, so clearly no evacuation.
hmmm... where do you get your information from? I watched the local news show the evacuation on TV here in Chicago. And the passengers were put on other flights, so the flight did not continue 2 hrs after landing. The TV news story here, seemed to indicate that the BA airplane was still at O'Hare last night. Are you saying they fixed it and had it airborne within 2 hours?

[Hotel Mode]

hmmm... where do you get your information from?

BA's internal systems, showed it having closed up and departed for IAH until after I went to bed. Only this morning had the ORD-IAH sector been removed.

And I still understand there was no evacuation, the passengers were disembarked down steps at a remote stand.

[weasil]

In the US if a plane makes an emergency landing and stops on a runway or taxiway and all the passengers get off, that is an evacuation - whether it is by slides or by stairs. The airplane was parked in front of our (United Airlines) maintenance hangar by rwy 32L from what I could see on TV. I wasn't at work yesterday.

[apaddyinuk]

Weasil, did it show slides deploying and people jumping down them? Cos if so I think you may have had the movie channel on!
It was apparently a precautionary diversion as a result of an overheating IFE system in one of the seats. The crew did the right thing and passengers were in no immediate danger. They later completed their journey on AA by all accounts.
Not a "non-event" but certainly not a sensational event!

[Hotel Mode]

As I understand it was parked on a remote stand and unloaded. Doors werent opened until 10 mins after landing so I really cant see how it can be described as an evacuation.

[weasil]

Noone is trying to sensationalise it - this kind of thing is a daily occurrence at O'Hare. I laughed one day recently when someone asked the ground controller why the firetrucks were racing out - his reply "Oh it's just an emergency, happens all the time, no big deal."

I figured HM works for BA based on his other posts, and it sounded like he had conflicting internal information. Just trying to clarify what actually happened because it wouldn't be the first time my local news station here in Chicago got the story wrong.

[apaddyinuk]

Hehe, I think its an industry wide thing to mis-report aviation incidents regardless of location!