BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas [Archive] - Page 3

MrDK

25th Sep 2015, 08:11

Would it stand to reason the Boeing (and perhaps GE) to offer subsidies to the overall repair cost so to avoid another hull loss?
Although there has only been one 777 loss so far that was squarely on Boeing (Cairo) or two if you count RR engines (London) there still have been three others in a little more than 2 recent years (MH17 assumed), though hardly issues faulting Boeing.
I doubt this would not be the first time a frame has been restored and resumed service with repair cost questionable to its book value.

wanabee777

25th Sep 2015, 08:32

Is the aircraft owned, outright, by BA or is it leased??

oblivia

25th Sep 2015, 10:38

Most of BA's 777s are on the balance sheet, ultimately owned by IAG, its parent. But there are a handful that are leased.

alexb757

26th Sep 2015, 05:19

Originally Posted by alexb757

Further news from Boeing and BA. Looks like they will repair in LAS and will take from 2-2.5 months to complete. Not sure if that includes the replacement engine or not.

Good luck with that working out!

Well, it's still sitting on the cargo ramp to where it was towed more than two weeks after the incident, and both sides of the aircraft as well as the engine pylon, have been taped off and covered in plastic sheeting.

Word has it that Boeing and BA AOG will be doing the work together. Not likely to start until some time in October since there are some logistics to sort out as well as airport authority authorizations, no doubt.

tdracer

26th Sep 2015, 06:02

One often overlooked aspect of the 'repair' or 'scrap' equation is the availability of replacement aircraft. The 777 remains a very popular aircraft, and while a few dozen have been retired or "permanently removed from service", those aircraft are well and truly knackered. Delivery slots of new 777's are pretty much non-existent for the next 3 years.
There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.

procede

26th Sep 2015, 08:39

One often overlooked aspect of the 'repair' or 'scrap' equation is the availability of replacement aircraft.

Should not be an issue, as Kenya is trying to sell four, which are in storage and newer (and with RR's which BA already has as well).
http://atwonline.com/airlines/kenya-airways-sell-four-boeing-777-200ers.

Spooky 2

26th Sep 2015, 13:45

Should not be an issue, as Kenya is trying to sell four, which are in storage and newer (and with RR's which BA already has as well).
Kenya Airways | Boeing | Airlines content from ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/airlines/kenya-airways-sell-four-boeing-777-200ers).
procede is offline Report Post

Those have been spoken for already?

Mr A Tis

26th Sep 2015, 14:43

Malaysian are also trying to off load half their fleet, which includes 4 x 777 200ERs & 6 A380s that are for sale or lease.

wingview

26th Sep 2015, 16:28

Should not be an issue, as Kenya is trying to sell four, which are in storage and newer (and with RR's which BA already has as well).

BA is using GE engines on their T7's as far as I know.

Edit: Mixed GE and RR on T72 and GE only on T73

neilki

26th Sep 2015, 21:45

@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...

There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.

oleostrut

26th Sep 2015, 22:06

"Word has it that Boeing and BA AOG will be doing the work together. Not likely to start until some time in October since there are some logistics to sort out as well as airport authority authorizations, no doubt."

Boeing has had an inspection team go over the entire damage. They will make up a series of repair kits, all individually crated so as to allow the work to proceed in a logical order. The repair orders are written as to speed the tear-down and repair.

I saw this first hand when one of out Boeings was involve in a runway collision with another plane .
The aircraft sat in the hanger for 6 weeks, or so, than all these large wooden crates arrived. Every needed part down to the number of hi-loks and tubes of fuel tank sealant were in the proper boxes.

A Boeing repair crew showed up and went about repairing the wing and fuselage damage. About a month later, it was back flying again.

nightowl727

26th Sep 2015, 23:02

neilki posted:
@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...

There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.

I wonder in what sense the word "worth" is being tossed around here. If that 747 was really of lesser value less than the cost to fix it, then another airframe of similar age and condition could have been acquired. Seems more likely that the airframe was under-insured (i.e. at less than market value or replacement cost - for whatever reason), and QF swallowed the difference to get it repaired. PR is valuable,but I doubt that the accountable goodwill of "Rainman" thinking would have been affected much by that sort of actuarial nuance in claim adjustment, IF it ever in fact occurred.

Cheers, Nightowl727 ;)

p.s. Any decision on the viability of repairs vs. write-off of the LAS T7 will obviously be made by folk with high pay grades at BA, but I do remember they repaired a 747 at BGI (in the open air!) with superficially very similar damage after a refuelling incident that went very pear-shaped - thinking it was around '79..

alexb757

26th Sep 2015, 23:28

p.s. Any decision on the viability of repairs vs. write-off of the LAS T7 will obviously be made by folk with high pay grades at BA, but I do remember they repaired a 747 at BGI (in the open air!) with superficially very similar damage after a refuelling incident that went very pear-shaped - thinking it was around '79..

Nightowl: this repair will be done in "the open air" here at LAS. Said aircraft will be relocacted to a slightly different pad (for a variety of reasons) and the aircraft is all prepped, waiting for the AOG folks to arrive and start their round the clock shifts.......:ok:

Weatherwise, it's the beginning of fall/autumn here and even today the temps are in the high 90s (~37*C)......best part of the year here is late September and October ;)

tdracer

27th Sep 2015, 01:05

@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...
The short answer is NO, it wasn't QANTAS (and yes I'm familiar with that story as well).

It's been about 30 years (and I didn't find it on a quick Google), but memory says it was Air India, or at least somewhere in India. I mainly remember it because it was such a big deal to the Boeing AOG team - the biggest job they'd ever done - and they were justifiably proud (err, unlike a certain JAL 747 they'd repaired :().

DaveReidUK

27th Sep 2015, 11:08

do remember they repaired a 747 at BGI (in the open air!) with superficially very similar damage after a refuelling incident that went very pear-shaped - thinking it was around '79.

Sounds like the 1983 incident where an incorrectly connected nozzle came off the hose during refuelling, spraying a hot engine with fuel and resulting in fire damage to the engine(s) and wing.

Total repair cost was around $10m in 1983 prices. Must have been a -100 or -200. If the latter, then it would have been at least 10 years younger at the time than the Vegas 777, with a further 18 years of flying for BA ahead of it.

anartificialhorizon

27th Sep 2015, 14:42

A and C

27th Sep 2015, 15:50

My memory may be playing tricks but did not BA do some sort of power by the hour deal with GE when they sold GA their engine overhaul business?

Chu Chu

27th Sep 2015, 16:34

Aren't the engine costs pretty much a wash anyway? At least I'd assume that the "salvage" value of an undamaged engine is essentially the same as the cost of a replacement engine in similar condition.

Roughly speaking, something is economically repairable if the salvage value plus the repair cost is lower than the value of the item after repair. In other words, if increase in value due to repair is greater than the cost of the repair.

Here, a destroyed engine increases the repair cost of the aircraft, but decreases the salvage value by a similar amount -- so the sum should be about the same. It could matter who's paying for what, but in an efficient market it shouldn't.

peekay4

27th Sep 2015, 18:33

What I said in a previous post, which most people have ignored, is that when calculating the viability and economy of repairs from an insurers perspective, the costs for the engine damage will almost certainly be excluded. There is no coverage for a mechanical failure.

Insurers will only be paying for the airframe and associated repairs. Therefore, now there has been a physical inspection of the damage, the numbers probably add up.
In general what you're saying is not at all correct, at least not in the aviation industry.

Aviation hull insurance contracts (unlike most types of insurance contracts) are written to a pre-determined "Agreed Value". Any payout resulting from an accident will be in this amount minus deductibles. That's it, no more, no less.

So in aviation hull insurance, the payout value is fixed, and the insurance company doesn't "adjust" the amount based on investigation into engine damage, mechanical failure, etc. The only value to determine is if repairs are economical (that is, under the Agreed Value). If not, the Agreed Value is paid out in full. Period.

In almost all instances, the value of the engines are covered as part of this "Agreed Value" under the aircraft's hull insurance.

The only exceptions relate to things like replacement engines, spare engines, and engines taken off the aircraft for maintenance, storage, shipping, etc.

llondel

27th Sep 2015, 18:47

You also need to look at the cost of not having the engine. If they are going to be short of spare engines for a significant period (I assume one does not just go to the engine store and buy a new one off the shelf) then the potential cost of that will be factored in. The same with the airframe, if they don't have a spare then a future failure may well disrupt schedules and end up costing them more. In itself it's a form of insurance.

The insurance company probably only covers the airframe/engine, not the consequential loss, that's usually clearly excluded in pretty much any insurance policy unless a much bigger premium gets paid.

alexb757

27th Sep 2015, 18:54

Peekay4,

Thanks for your detailed explanation here. Sounds like you know a thing or two with regards to aviation insurance coverage and claims.......

Spooky 2

27th Sep 2015, 19:03

We taxied by it yesterday evening and it was still parked where they initially parked it after the incident. The engine had been removed and was not in sight. Several large tarps covering things at this hour. Will interesting to see where they move it for the repairs. Probably just relocate it on the same ramp.

alexb757

27th Sep 2015, 19:06

Spooky,
You are correct on all accounts!
I'll keep you posted......

LeadSled

27th Sep 2015, 19:31

BKK Buggy
@TDRacer:-
Are you referring to the QF Golf Buggy? I don't think economics came into that decision; it was Rainman & QANTAS corporate reputation by accounts. Never lost a hull...

There was a case of a 747 heavily damaged in runway over-run back in the 1980's that was repaired and returned to service even though it cost more to repair than it was worth, simply because they needed the aircraft and Boeing didn't have any available delivery slots.

Folks,
It is about time to put the OJH issue to bed.
The repair was a commercial decision, made by the insurance companies. The figures are well known, the repair was just under US$90M, the value of the aircraft around US$140 at the time.
There is an excellent TV documentary of the subject, you will probably find it on YouTube.
As a bonus, the repairs and re-rigging were so well done that it became the best in the fleet, fuel wise, delta fuel more than 3% better than the worst, better than baseline book, and the ONLY one in the fleet that flew with zero rudder trim in cruise.
I know from personal experience, not company propaganda, I flew it often enough before and after tearing up the General's golf course.
And, no, Qantas never self insured it's fleet, another nonsense story.
Tootle pip!!

Bigt

27th Sep 2015, 19:55

OD-AGC of TMA was badly damaged on 3/12/75 whilst involved in a overrun at Athens. Complex recovery and rebuild.
Also a JAL 747 badly damaged and rebuilt after `weather cocking` at Anchorage

tdracer

27th Sep 2015, 22:12

OD-AGC of TMA was badly damaged on 3/12/75 whilst involved in a overrun at Athens. Complex recovery and rebuild.
Thanks Bigt, I'm reasonably sure that's the one I was thinking of. I was only off ten years and a several hundred miles :uhoh:

Stuart Sutcliffe

28th Sep 2015, 09:29

Spooky 2 wrote:The engine had been removed and was not in sight. I wouldn't be surprised if the damaged engine is already in the hands of General Electric for strip and examination, under the auspices of the NTSB?

Spooky 2

28th Sep 2015, 10:00

Would not be surprised if the local TV news stations follow the progress of this repair on a weekly basis. Could be both educational and interesting as well.

Metro man

28th Sep 2015, 11:49

Centaurus

28th Sep 2015, 13:19

Flight International reported that the fire in the engine spread to the underbelly and fuselage due to a crosswind as the aircraft stopped on the runway.

Shades of the British Air Tours Boeing 737-200 accident at Manchester where the effect of the reverse thrust plume of the affected engine atomised escaping fuel from a ruptured fuel tank and increased the severity of the conflagration. When that aircraft turned off the runway and stopped on the taxiway, the five knot now crosswind blew the flames against the fuselage with disastrous results.

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-236 G-BGJL Manchester International Airport (MAN) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850822-0)

Scuffers

28th Sep 2015, 13:27

The QF A380 with the uncontained engine failure out of Singapore could have been a scrap case as well, given the extent of the damage. It was grounded for a very long time but eventually returned to service.

not really the same deal, it was not subjected to fire, as well as bing a new plane with a massive value.

Fire causes massive damage, a lot of it can be un-seen...

Metro man

28th Sep 2015, 13:52

The QF incident cost $140 million to repair, a considerable proportion of the aircrafts $390 million price tag. The repair took eight months but the aircraft was grounded for eighteen months due to hangar availability. Structural damage was considerable including the forward spar. The incident also led to the wing crack problem being discovered. RR paid $95 million in compensation for schedule disruption.

AIRBUS were keen not to have a write off. Had the aircraft been an old A340 it would probably have been scrapped.

anartificialhorizon

28th Sep 2015, 14:15

Peekay Quote:

In general what you're saying is not at all correct, at least not in the aviation industry.

Aviation hull insurance contracts (unlike most types of insurance contracts) are written to a pre-determined "Agreed Value". Any payout resulting from an accident will be in this amount minus deductibles. That's it, no more, no less.

So in aviation hull insurance, the payout value is fixed, and the insurance company doesn't "adjust" the amount based on investigation into engine damage, mechanical failure, etc. The only value to determine is if repairs are economical (that is, under the Agreed Value). If not, the Agreed Value is paid out in full. Period.

In almost all instances, the value of the engines are covered as part of this "Agreed Value" under the aircraft's hull insurance.

The only exceptions relate to things like replacement engines, spare engines, and engines taken off the aircraft for maintenance, storage, shipping, etc.

Peekay, you obviously didnt read my post and you are not correct. I said when calculating the repair costs........! As you correctly say, there is an Agreed Value and this is what is used to calculate whether the aircraft is economic to repair or not! So say the Agreed Value is US$30 million. You can exclude the engine (as it will likely not be covered by insurance) so you have approximately US$ 21 milllion to play with (approx 70% level before things are written off). Therefore, if the Hull calculated repair costs fall within US$21 million (there or thereabouts), it will be economic to repair and that number (for repair) will be the numbers that insurers will cough! Therefore there is an adjustment calculated for the repairs. It is not automatically paid at the Agreed Value, as you suggest. Only when the aircraft is clearly a write off is the Agreed Value paid and again you are incorrect in saying nothing more, nothing less. If there are additional costs incurred for recovery, parking, storage, transportaion, Search and Rescue, these are paid in addition to the Agreed Value.

peekay4

28th Sep 2015, 15:24

You can exclude the engine (as it will likely not be covered by insurance)
Again this is where your description is not correct. An engine that's attached to the aircraft is part of the aircraft's hull insurance "Agreed Value" and is not deducted from economic repair calculations, even if the cause of the accident/incident is mechanical failure of the engine.

I think you may be misinterpreting the mechanical "breakdown or failure" exclusions that's common in policies. The usual wording for this exclusion is "due and confined to (mechanical or other failure)".

The "confined to" part is important. If an engine fails on taxi and the engine simply shuts down -- this is considered a mechanical issue "confined to" the engine and is not covered by insurance.

But if the same engine fails on taxi and burns down the entire plane -- this is not a confined mechanical issue and insurance will provide full "Agreed Value" coverage.

On turbine aircraft there is usually a similar exclusion for engine hot starts. If you screw up a start and heat damage the engine, vanilla insurance of course won't cover it.

LASJayhawk

28th Sep 2015, 20:17

Spooky 2
Would not be surprised if the local TV news stations follow the progress of this repair on a weekly basis. Could be both educational and interesting as well.
After about 2 days, not a peep out of them. Doubt there will be any more coverage in the local broadcast media.

Tangosierra

28th Sep 2015, 23:20

It is amazing what the Boeing Recovery team can achieve!! September 1993,
Air France B747-400 F-GITA ran off the runway in Tahiti (FAAA),front half in the water,back half on dry land,(Ditching or Ground Evac??or both!) The Boeing boys arrived, dragged the aircraft back onto hard stand,built a full canvas hangar around it,replaced most of the front end and other assorted systems and parts and it then flew out!! Top Job!!:ok:

Spooky 2

29th Sep 2015, 09:26

Don't you think the Boeing engineers have done a damage assessment yet?? I'm not a structures engineer but I really didn't see so much damage that it could not be repaired. Now the economics of the repair may be a different story on this older airframe. You have to assume that the pros have looked this over pretty well and if two and one-half months is all it will take it must not be to overwhelming.

clipstone1

29th Sep 2015, 10:53

Aviation Hull Insurance would normally cover the whole aircraft including the engines. If a spare engine is fitted (ie one that doesn't belong to the aircraft, be that leased in or originally fitted to another aircraft) then usually the agreed value of the aircraft will be increased to take that into account.

Whilst mechanical failure of the engine is unlikely to be covered, that really only makes reference to the component that failed, the resultant damage would be covered. The issue with engines of course is there will always be betterment when rebuilding it, because some items have to be replaced during strip down and rebuild and others it would be silly to rebuild without refurbing. Thus, the return to full hours will result in an uninsured cost probably equivilent to a full overhaul, it may thus be cheaper not to overhaul but to buy a serivceable second hand engine. BA has the advantage that most of their aircraft are owned, so potentially no lossor will need to be involved in that decision.

Either way, with a reported agreed value of $30m, and a customary Constructive Total Loss amount of 60% of the agreed value, there's not much money to play with since the claim will easily get to $18m. There is always the ability to do some negotiating with the loss adjusters and insurers on all of the numbers except the agreed value and deductible. I am sure IAG will do whatever works best for them, remembering to get another aircraft that will most likely be different (not sure how much spec you can change on the 777, but I know for 737 there's differing avionics, brakes, galleys etc) then have to refit entire cabin to work with BA config, all of which will cost BA several $million it might be worth them just footing some of the bill to get this one flying again for another 6 or 7 years rather than accepting a total loss and be one aircraft down

anartificialhorizon

29th Sep 2015, 20:21

Peekay wrote....

Again this is where your description is not correct. An engine that's attached to the aircraft is part of the aircraft's hull insurance "Agreed Value" and is not deducted from economic repair calculations, even if the cause of the accident/incident is mechanical failure of the engine.

I think you may be misinterpreting the mechanical "breakdown or failure" exclusions that's common in policies. The usual wording for this exclusion is "due and confined to (mechanical or other failure)".

The "confined to" part is important. If an engine fails on taxi and the engine simply shuts down -- this is considered a mechanical issue "confined to" the engine and is not covered by insurance.

But if the same engine fails on taxi and burns down the entire plane -- this is not a confined mechanical issue and insurance will provide full "Agreed Value" coverage.

On turbine aircraft there is usually a similar exclusion for engine hot starts. If you screw up a start and heat damage the engine, vanilla insurance of course won't cover it.

I will try and say it again! If this aircraft is going to be repaired, the calculations will exclude the engine as the engine is likely to be excluded by policy conditions, due to it having suffered a mechanical breakdown! If the resultant damage caused to the aircraft means the costs to repair the aircraft to exceed 60-70%, it will deemed a write off and the claim paid at the Agreed Value.

For example (purely as a projection);

Fuselage repair estimate (parts and labour) - US$10 million
Parking, temporarary hangar etc - US$1 million
Ferry flight back to LHR - US$ 100,000
New pylon and associated wiring - US$2 million
Wing repairs - US$2 million

Total estimated repairs US$15.1 million

Therefore economic to repair at just over 50% of aircraft's agreed value (say value of US$30 million)

Where does the engine come into this? Who is going to pay for the engine to be repaired/ overhauled? Answer please?

However if the above figures added up to say US$25 million, then the claim would be paid as a write off at the Agreed Value (say US$30 million).

If, as you say, the engine costs are covered in this particluar event, it is already clearly a write off as you can add anything up to US$10 million to the above repair number. I say it again, IF THIS AIRCRAFT IS REPAIRED AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING WHETHER IT IS ECONOMIC TO REPAIR, THE ENGINE REPAIR COSTS WILL NOT BE PAID FOR BY INSURERS AS IT HAS SUFFERED A MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN! THE RESULTANT (AIRFRAME) DAMAGE IS COVERED!

lomapaseo

29th Sep 2015, 23:36

With all this talk about engine damage vs aircraft damage in the millions, maybe a definition of what is an engine part not covered is in order.

Just a guess (I didn't write the insurance spec). The part that goes to the GE shop is the engine. The parts that make up the nacelle and pylon that are heat damage are aircraft parts. It might make mucho million dollars difference in the insurance costs.

LASJayhawk

30th Sep 2015, 00:08

2 minor updates from the local paper (Las Vegas Review Journal)

$375/ day being charged for tie down.
The area by the cargo terminal where the plane is parked is not approved for MX, it would have to be moved elsewhere to start repairs. :confused:

Aerostar6

30th Sep 2015, 23:39

A little inside info.

Boeing and BA have both NDTed the wing and it has a clean bill of health. There will need to be a major skin repair forward of the wing on the left side, as the hull was breached at that location.
All apparently do-able, but cost yet to be assessed, which will be the deal maker/breaker as to whether it will be financially viable.
The cost of hangar space to do the work will be a major factor, apparently.

Yaw String

1st Oct 2015, 02:21

Ian W

1st Oct 2015, 12:06

Sorry if this has been stated before....
If this scenario occurred with a Boeing 787...Where do the CAC(cabin air compressors) draw in ambient air for pressurisation?????
With the amount of smoke enveloping the fuselage,both CACS would have been affected...with an obvious outcome,unless i have missed something(possibly)!

The CACs are just forward of the wing root. http://image.slidesharecdn.com/b787-111218094540-phpapp02/95/introducing-the-787-31-728.jpg?cb=1324255052

However, on the ground will the pressurization systems actually be running? Even if they were I would think that they are simple to switch off.

Spooky 2

1st Oct 2015, 14:01

I doubt that they would need a hangar for this job regardless it would appear that no hangar on the airport would be capable of handling the 777 other than maybe the Sands hangar which is probably not available at any price. The Boeing teams have worked in much worse conditions so I don't see lack of a hangar being a deal breaker. LAS weather is cooling down and quite nice at this time of the year. Hard to imagine the airport authority denying them permission to do the work on the freight ramp but whatever:}

Yaw String

1st Oct 2015, 17:14

wanabee777

1st Oct 2015, 17:20

So smoke entering the cabin via one intake,could also, be more likely to enter via the other,too...as would most certainly have been the case,in Vegas.

Not good!!

Ian W

1st Oct 2015, 18:18

Ian W,.....I meant to put !!! instead of ????..
Sure you can switch the CACs off, both of them, then you have no air coming in,but may already have a cabin full of smoke...
Point is,on the 787,the CAC intakes are much closer to each other,than with the separation achieved by using engine bleed supplied air.
So smoke entering the cabin via one intake,could also, be more likely to enter via the other,too...as would most certainly have been the case,in Vegas.

In the air the CAC has the advantage that an engine problem will not cause the input cabin air to be contaminated.

If the aircraft is on the ground having just RTO with engine fire, both engines are shut down. So with bleed air all air input stops. With CAC air power down CAC all air input stops.

Sorry I do not see a significant difference apart from advantages in flight and in normal ops of no cabin air contamination.

TURIN

1st Oct 2015, 21:08

Sure you can switch the CACs off, both of them,

Both? Four surely?:ok:

Yaw String

2nd Oct 2015, 07:36

Four indeed,with two manual pack switches controlling each pair.( along with auto control of individual CAC)

Once both engines are secured,as in the evacuation checklist,the CACs would shut down,with no APU operating,as would normally be the case...my thoughts were about how much smoke would have been drawn in to the aircraft,in the Vegas scenario...before the CACs shut down...

Volume

2nd Oct 2015, 07:57

But at least this would be "healthy smoke" from burning fuel, not the "nasty smoke" from burning plastics... And the soot will most probably be caught by the filters. But nothing I would like to try personally
Maybe somebody at Boeing has already had the same smart idea, and the procedures for takeoff are accordingly selected? You probably don´t want to have the electric load during takeoff run either. Just like with packless takeoffs on conventional aircraft.
It would be great to learn more.

barit1

2nd Oct 2015, 19:44

Volume:You probably don´t want to have the electric load during takeoff run either. Just like with packless takeoffs on conventional aircraft.

I've gotta think about this in terms of "special case" high-altitude fields like Bogota, Quito, La Paz (4000 m altitude, 4000 m runway) and some Tibetan fields. While aircraft performance is enhanced by "packs off", I'd think some pressurization would be better for pax & crew alertness.

Chris Scott

2nd Oct 2015, 22:01

(I thought this was a B777 engine-fire accident thread?) ;)

However, barit1, doesn't using the APU during take-off solve your problem? On conventional jets, it's always been a possible alternative to "packs off" when performance is critical (although frowned upon by bean-counters).

barit1

2nd Oct 2015, 23:43

Chris Scott, you are correct. Not all my neurons are connected, I fear.

Thanks for refreshing my cognition.

alexb757

3rd Oct 2015, 00:34

A couple of more points. The aircraft was being washed (and not just the area around the smoke/fire damage, but above and aft of the wings along the fuselage).

The engine was removed and taken to GE some time ago, I'm guessing around 2 weeks ago. Since then, a bunch of both BA and Boeing engieers have been looking over the aircraft where it is currently parked.

BA requested hangar space as that is a preferable way to repair under cover. However, as Spooky has already surmised, the only hangar even capable of accommodating this size aircraft would be the Sands Corp (aka Venetian) on the far west side of the airport. Since it is privately owned, BA/Boeing would have to make a separate deal with Mr. Adelson for that! Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way and crossing two live runways to boot. Personally, I don't see that happening for practical reasons.

Once the final decision is made (and I think a repair will be effected), it will simply be relocated to another spot on the same cargo ramp. Weather is beginning to cool off this month (today, a balmy 32*C) and I'm sure they've worked under far worse conditions than Las Vegas in the fall!

The DOA is likely to charge some fees and the number quoted earlier on is in the ballpark. So, yes, there are other financial considerations, too.

Looking at the aircraft, it already looks cleaned up a lot and my best guess is they will start work on it within the next 2-3 weeks. :ok:

grounded27

3rd Oct 2015, 04:48

Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way and crossing two live runways to boot. Personally, I don't see that happening for practical reasons.
I used to tow B74C's across field 3 active runways to remote parking with regularity KMIA.

A hangar is preferable yet I have seen a RAMS team repair similar damage N621FF repaired outdoors by pitching a tent over it. Burnt fuselage skins may complicate things but I believe they can do it. Wind conditions are the factor in jacking and shoring, do not think Vegas is worse than in Miami.

Photo: N621FF (CN: 21730) Boeing 747-259B(SF) by Javier Rodriguez - IBERIAN SPOTTERS Photoid:7933771 - JetPhotos.Net (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7933771&nseq=0)

overstress

3rd Oct 2015, 11:27

Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way

Why not? Happens all the time at LHR, for example.

wingview

3rd Oct 2015, 15:45

Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way

Why not? Happens all the time at LHR, for example.

I think alexb757 referred to the current status of the aircraft (ie structural damage). Normally you could tow a plane around the world :)

overstress

3rd Oct 2015, 22:47

That's not what he said, though.

alexb757

4th Oct 2015, 01:10

OK, let me explain further re towing and a few other things.

Sure, any aircraft could be towed across runways, taxiways, roads etc. However, knowing KLAS intimately, and as one who responded to the incident last month, it would be impractical primarily because of possible FOD issues.

As mentioned previously, that hangar is a private hangar and I cannot imagine that Sheldon Adelson would consider moving any of his aircraft to take a 777 for several months inside.

Second, there is plenty of space on the cargo ramp and if you don't have to move it far, or at all, then why move it to the other side of the airport?

Never even mentioned KMIA! Working outside at KLAS right now and going in to December is just as pleasant as KMIA :O Wind would obviously be a concern and we get plenty of that.

Yes, they have been talking about tie-downs and drilling in to the concrete of the ramp!:)

No action as of yet - other than cleaning teams the past few days.

DaveReidUK

4th Oct 2015, 07:41

No action as of yet - other than cleaning teams the past few days.

Which may yet turn out to be a precursor to stripping the aircraft of anything reusable and dismantling the airframe.

cessnapete

4th Oct 2015, 07:44

THR RED ACC

4th Oct 2015, 09:56

Three pilots on a Las Lhr flight, one for inflight relief. He has no duties on takeoff as it is a two crew operation, no Boeing checklists involve three pilots.
Both PF and PNF are trained/experienced and authorised to call Stop in BA on rejected takeoff, so no difference whoever is flying in this case.

Thank you.

I have heard that the relief pilot checked the cabin situation and then informed the operating flight crew of the need to evacuate?

--EDIT--

I also found it rather interesting that some media outlets were reporting originally that Peter Burkill was the captain of that flight...

Phileas Fogg

4th Oct 2015, 12:42

Three pilots on a Las Lhr flight

I thought the destination was London/Gatwick!

BBK

4th Oct 2015, 16:33

Just curious about the role of the 3rd pilot. Does the BA SOP not have anything about calling anything on the take off roll with respect to abnormal situations?

Genuine curiosity nothing more.

BBK

JW411

4th Oct 2015, 16:47

Indeed, if he/she is only there for FTL purposes, do they even have to occupy the jump seat for take-off?

wiggy

4th Oct 2015, 17:26

if he/she is only there for FTL purposes, do they even have to occupy the jump seat for take-off?

Yes.......in fact have to be there up to FL200 (I believe that particular figure came from EASA).

BBK - re SOPs, Yes they should call out anything abnormal if they think the operating crew are not aware of it, but they shouldn't call "stop".

BBK

5th Oct 2015, 08:05

Wiggy

Thanks for that. I thought that would probably be the case.

BBK

gcal

5th Oct 2015, 08:19

@Phileas Fogg
The outbound sector is scheduled at about 10 hours so yes.
It's only a hop skip and jump to the west coast.

anartificialhorizon

5th Oct 2015, 22:20

Lomapaseo wrote -With all this talk about engine damage vs aircraft damage in the millions, maybe a definition of what is an engine part not covered is in order.

Just a guess (I didn't write the insurance spec). The part that goes to the GE shop is the engine. The parts that make up the nacelle and pylon that are heat damage are aircraft parts. It might make mucho million dollars difference in the insurance costs.

The definition of an engine generally means all of those parts required to run the engine on a test stand. Different policies have different definitions but this is generally the rule of thumb.

So the engine will include the core engine, the QEC and accessories, the nose cowl, fan cowls and thrust reversers. All these are required on a high bypass engine (although the test cell will use their own equipment).

Pylon will be airframe in this case.

So quite a lot of dollars there for someone to pay for! GE maybe?

As for it being a write off, no idea. It would'nt surprise me with the age of the aircraft etc. although if a lot of the damage is superficial and there is no main spar damage etc. it might be quite economic to repair.

Longtimer

6th Oct 2015, 18:53

NTSB Issues Second Update on British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas
________________________________________

Oct. 6, 2015
As part of its ongoing investigation into the September 8, 2015, engine fire during takeoff of British Airways flight 2276, a Boeing 777, at McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, the NTSB today released the following investigative update.

• Investigators disassembled and documented the GE90 engine at the GE facility in Evandale, Ohio. Group members from the FAA, GE, and Boeing, along with the United Kingdom’s accredited representative from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and their technical advisor, British Airways, were in attendance.

• Engine examination revealed that a portion of the stage 8-10 spool in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) section had failed, liberating fragments that breached the engine case and cowling. Additional pieces of the HPC spool were recovered from inside the engine and retained for metallurgical examination.

• The NTSB Materials Laboratory examined engine parts gathered from the scene.

• HPC parts recovered during the disassembly of the engine were examined at the GE facility.

• All pieces of the damaged stage 8 disk rim have been collected.

• The fracture initiated in the HPC stage 8 disk web, a part of the stage 8-10 spool. The NTSB will continue metallurgical evaluations of the disk and the fracture features.

• GE is performing high-priority, focused inspections of HPC hardware from other GE90 engines. The inspection data is being gathered to support the investigation and to determine further investigative actions.

Additional updates will be provided as new factual information is developed.

THR RED ACC

6th Oct 2015, 20:13

I am quite anxious for the final report because I still am yet to hear whether the third pilot (acting as relief first officer) played a very important role in the outcome of this incident?

And thus if this "second officer" did play a vital and contributing role, the question must then be asked, "should flight engineers be returned to the flight deck?"

Happy landings!

Mr Magnetic

6th Oct 2015, 22:55

Only if one could demonstrate that their absence would have caused a less favorable outcome...

wiggy

7th Oct 2015, 06:01

the question must then be asked, "should flight engineers be returned to the flight deck?"

And the answer that will be given is "No".

If there has to be a third fight deck crew member it makes much more sense these days to make any third bod a pilot.....they can act as in-flight relief.

In any event as Mr Magnetic has pointed out you'd still have to show that the lack of a third crewmember would have generated a less favourable outcome.

D Bru

7th Oct 2015, 08:20

See my post #188. HPCR 8-10 spool already covered by AD 2002-04-11 and by AD 2011-15-06 and subject to additional inspections for years. Both GE and Boeing tried to convince the FAA in 2011 that the condition covered in the latest AD could not lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. FAA denied their argument but despite the two AD's this seems now to be the first uncontained engine failure of the type.

Boeing and GE comments on FAA's 2011 "unsafe condition" qualification of GE80-85B
From FAA AD 2011-15-06 concerning "unsafe condition" of GE90-76B; GE90-77B; GE90-85B; GE90- 90B; and GE90-94B Turbofan Engines
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
"This AD was prompted by cracks discovered on one HPCR 8-10 spool between the 9-10 stages in the weld joint. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane".

"Request
Two commenters, General Electric Company and The Boeing Company, requested that we remove the ''Unsafe Condition'' paragraph from the AD, and reword the Summary section to resemble the Summary section of AD 2002-04-11. The commenters stated that, by their analyses, cracks in the weld joint would not develop into an uncontained failure. The commenters stated that HPCR 8-10 stage spools, P/Ns 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02, be inspected by an enhanced inspection, similar to those parts covered in AD 2002-04-11.

Answer
We do not agree. AD 2002-04-11 was issued because of additional focused inspection procedures that had been developed by the manufacturer. Because cracks were discovered on one HPCR 8-10 spool between the 9-10 stages in the weld joint, this unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. The unsafe condition could result in failure of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane. We determined that this unsafe condition requires mandatory repetitive inspections for cracks. We did not change the AD."

Global_Global

7th Oct 2015, 08:35

Thanks D Bru, very interesting reading! :ok:

philbky

7th Oct 2015, 08:38

Something that has come up in discussion with both professionals and enthusiasts over the last few weeks has been the total destruction of the composite areas of the structure.

Coming after the A400M accident at Seville where little of the structure remained, the question arises about the survivability of post accident fires in an otherwise survivable accident/incident in an aircraft with a high degree of composite construction.

Also, how much more difficult will accident investigation be where structural failure/damage causes an accident but the structure has all but disappeared?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of this area may wish to comment.

wanabee777

7th Oct 2015, 10:59

...the question arises about the survivability of post accident fires in an otherwise survivable accident/incident in an aircraft with a high degree of composite construction.

Very good question!

Had it not been for an alert mechanic, that JAL 787 which caught fire in BOS could have been a total loss.

D Bru

7th Oct 2015, 12:15

According to GE, quoted by AP on 6/10, the spool in question was amongst the first made for the specific engine type (GE90-85B) in 1995.

Now, AD 2002-04-11 not only states that it is applicable to GE90-85B engines, but specifically “to each engine of the type, regardless of whether is has been modified, altered or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD.” See page 4 of this document:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/c38ae8b2dcfa515f86256bb3006c362a/$FILE/020411.pdf

GE is also quoted to have stated yesterday about the engine fitted to G-VIIO that “this was the first engine failure of its kind, as spools could be similar in design but were not built identically.” This last part is very important, not only because it distinguishes between an earlier uncontained engine failure, which concerned a different (and btw later) version of the GE90, but also because that is exactly where in my opinion part numbers become relevant, if one talks GE90-85B.

The table on page 6 of the document referred to above, mentions the HPCR Spool stage 8-10 and indicates that “all” partnumbers are covered. So, any HPCR Spool stage 8-10 on a GE90-85B.

Given these specifics mentioned in the AD and the year of manufacture (1995) of the G-VIIO engine, it seems therefore pretty clear at least to me that this particular engine was covered by AD2002.

Now whether it was also covered by AD 2011-15-06 depends on the specific partnumbers of the failed engine of G-VIIO. This AD also applies to GE90-85B engines, but concerning the HPCR 8-10 spool, only if it would involve partnumber 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02 (but not other builds, although of the same design). GE has denied that these parts were involved in the G-VIIO engine, so that AD 2011-15-06 would not seem applicable.

lomapaseo

7th Oct 2015, 13:56

There are two parts to a safety assessment involving engines. One is the consequences to the engine itself e.g. should not catch fire, burst its cases damage its mounts or lose the ability to be shutdown (sic).

The other equally important aspect is the assessment at the aircraft level. Any AD actions need consider both and address the need to minimize either or both by corrective actions.

At this time with so little facts published it is not obvious to me what such AD update is warranted.

Spooky 2

7th Oct 2015, 19:25

Actually the RP did play a significant role in the outcome of this event. The Commander asked him to go back into the cabin to check on what was happening. The RTO was at around <70kts and they had shutdown and firing of the bottles was complete. They were running the checklist and starting the APU when the RP came back up say there was a significant fire outside the aircraft and this is when the evacuation was ordered. The fire was caused by a ruptured 2" fuel line and it had spilled about 40 Gal of fuel. Both the spar valve and engine firewall shut off worked as designed. There will be more news regarding this event over the next week or so.

olasek

7th Oct 2015, 22:08

. Coming after the A400M accident at Seville where little of the structure remained,
Look up other such accidents where little structure remined and aircraft had traditional aluminium fuselage. It is a myth that composite aircraft enhances flammability, research has settled this question long time ago, you can google relevant scientific papers.

lomapaseo

7th Oct 2015, 23:27

The Commander asked him to go back into the cabin to check on what was happening. The RTO was at around <70kts and they had shutdown and firing of the bottles was complete. They were running the checklist and starting the APU when the RP came back up say there was a significant fire outside the aircraft and this is when the evacuation was ordered. The fire was caused by a ruptured 2" fuel line and it had spilled about 40 Gal of fuel. Both the spar valve and engine firewall shut off worked as designed.

Is there any kind of time line whether the fuel valves were closed while the aircraft was moving or only after it had come to a stop?

Volume

8th Oct 2015, 03:33

Something that has come up in discussion with both professionals and enthusiasts over the last few weeks has been the total destruction of the composite areas of the structure.No way to compare those, thin walled sandwich composite parts behave totally different from thick walled, monolithic composites. Compare the burn through time of a 3 layer plywood panel with that of a 10 ply panel, it will be a factor of 100 between. Every destroyed layer acts as a protection for the ones underneath, from a certain thickness it basically becomes fireproof. While melting metal runs away immediately exposing the one behind, burned layers will stay in place and protect the remaining ones. Heat transfer through aluminum and composites is totally different. Aluminum is destroyed by external fire, composies burns by itself once a fire started.
Finally both wreaks will not be a pretty sight...

The only thing we may learn from this accident is the fire scenario which should be used for tests. The scale of samples we should use for the tests, the type of flame we should use. Maybe one standard test does not give all the answers. And again (since british airtours) streched acrylic windows should get a second thought.

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 07:27

Is there any kind of time line whether the fuel valves were closed while the aircraft was moving or only after it had come to a stop?

Almost certainly, the fire handle(s) would not have been pulled until the aircraft was stopped.

Wirbelsturm

8th Oct 2015, 07:35

RTO,

Bring the aircraft to a stop, apply the parking brake, ensure forward idle on the thrust levers and .......... wait.

Check the reason for the stop call, confirm it between ALL flight crew and then commence memory items/communication as appropriate.

For engine fire and emergency shut down the fuel cutoff switches must be selected to cutoff before the fire handle is pulled.

So, the shutoff valves and pylon isolation would have been completed once the aircraft was stopped.

THR RED ACC

8th Oct 2015, 08:32

For engine fire and emergency shut down the fuel cutoff switches must be selected to cutoff before the fire handle is pulled.

This procedure is relatively new as you used to be able to just pull the fire handle and the fuel valves would then be closed automatically.

Do you think the crew used this procedure correctly?

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 08:32

For engine fire and emergency shut down the fuel cutoff switches must be selected to cutoff before the fire handle is pulled.

While the above statement is procedurally correct and proper, the fire handles can still be pulled with the engine fuel control switches in RUN, by pushing the fire handle override buttons in order to release the mechanical locks. (this would be unnecessary if there was an active fire warning for the associated engine)

This is because there needs to be a separate and independent means to shutdown an engine.

porterhouse

8th Oct 2015, 08:37

.composies burns by itself once a fire started.
Not true. The 'charring' effect stops fire propagation, look up FAA docs from 787 certification.

Wirbelsturm

8th Oct 2015, 09:13

by pushing the fire handle override buttons in order to release the mechanical locks.

This is also unnecessary as moving the CUTOFF switches to cutoff also unlocks the engine fire switches hence removing the need to press the override. (which are pretty awkward to use to say the least in my opinion!). The system is there to prevent inadvertent pulling of the handle on a live engine. The associated mechanical release is also unlocked in the event of a fire indication.

The FCOM lists the actions of closing the CUTOFF switches as

Closes the fuel valves
removes ignitor power
unlocks the engine fire switch

I believe the warning in the QRH is there to prevent crew 'regularly' using the override switches to cut the engine and to follow the correct procedure.

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 09:24

This is also unnecessary as moving the CUTOFF switches to cutoff also unlocks the engine fire switches hence removing the need to press the override. (which are pretty awkward to use to say the least in my opinion!). The system is there to prevent inadvertent pulling of the handle on a live engine.

The FCOM lists the actions of closing the CUTOFF switches as

Closes the fuel valves
removes ignitor power
unlocks the engine fire switch

I believe the warning in the QRH is there to prevent crew 'regularly' using the override switches to cut the engine and to follow the correct procedure.

All true. However, a catastrophic failure could render the fuel control switch(es) useless. Therefore the need for redundancy.

Volume

8th Oct 2015, 09:32

Not true. The 'charring' effect stops fire propagation, look up FAA docs from 787 certification. I may tell you an old trick from a composites repairman...
If you have to repair a glassfibre aircraft and do not know the exact layup, just cut out a piece, light it, lett it burn off, sort out the charred layers of fabric and identify their grade and orientation.
Believe me, they do burn once you light them. Completely. Al least if they are a piece, and not a large sample which you exposed to fire in a local area in the center only, in that case you are right. And that is what the FAA tests.

Wirbelsturm

8th Oct 2015, 09:40

All true. However, a catastrophic failure could render the fuel control switch(es) useless. Therefore the need for redundancy.

You are correct but it is important to differentiate what these controls do.

The cutoff switches close ONLY the fuel valves whereas the fire handles cut off the spar valves and fuel valves, trip the engine generators, closes the bleed valves, isolate the hydraulics, depressurizes the associated engine driven pump and removes power to the thrust reverser isolation valve.

So whilst a catastrophic failure might well remove the use of the cutout switches I think you would be pulling the fire switch anyway and the discussion was the correct procedure in the event of an evacuation RTO.

Boeing do not want pilots routinely over riding the fire switches as an inadvertent pull of the switch requires a massive engineering input. Hence the QRH warning is in bold and lined above and below in red. :ok:

WARNING:
Do not pull the ENGINE FIRE switches before the FUEL CONTROL switches are in the CUTOFF position.

I suppose Boeing could have put in a caveat somewhere of 'try not to land without the gear being down', it can be done but only in times of great necessity!!!! ;)

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 10:03

I guess this debate centers on how you define and apply the word "must".

My company's FAA approved QRH for the 777 does not include the WARNING that your QRH has.

Wirbelsturm

8th Oct 2015, 10:32

I guess this debate centers on how you define and apply the word "must".

My company's FAA approved QRH for the 777 does not include the WARNING that your QRH has.

Absolutely! We are using the Boeing Version direct which has it printed as above. Currently at Rev. 52

Horses for courses I suppose.

At the end of the day as long as the donks are switched off before we disgorge passengers onto the tarmac then the job is done. :ok:

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 10:40

That explains it!

We are currently only at Rev 15.:)

Spooky 2

8th Oct 2015, 14:05

One would have imagined that with that low airspeed during a RTO the airplane was stopped before any fire switches were pulled per Boeing SOP.

Spooky 2

8th Oct 2015, 14:07

Where do you come up with this stuff. The has been Boeing SOP since the 707:mad:

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 14:17

Probably even before the B-17.;)

tdracer

8th Oct 2015, 14:21

You are correct but it is important to differentiate what these controls do.

The cutoff switches close ONLY the fuel valves whereas the fire handles cut off the spar valves and fuel valves, trip the engine generators, closes the bleed valves, isolate the hydraulics, depressurizes the associated engine driven pump and removes power to the thrust reverser isolation valve.

Not true - Boeing design practice is that the fuel cutoff switch commands both the engine fuel valve and the spar valve - just like the fire handle - just via different wire routing paths. All current production Boeing aircraft shut both the engine and spar valves when the fuel switch is placed to Cutoff.

The primary reason that the pilot is instructed to set the fuel switch to Cutoff before pulling the fire handle is redundancy - when the Fire handle is pulled, it removes power from the fuel switch circuit. If there has been damage to the fire handle wire routing but not the fuel switch wires and you pull the fire handle first, you've lost the ability shutoff the fuel. Fuel switch first maximizes the ability to shutoff the fuel after a major failure.

Wirbelsturm

8th Oct 2015, 14:37

fuel cutoff switch commands both the engine fuel valve and the spar valve

You are quite correct, I missed the word 'valves' and read 'valve'.

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 14:47

The primary reason that the pilot is instructed to set the fuel switch to Cutoff before pulling the fire handle is redundancy - when the Fire handle is pulled, it removes power from the fuel switch circuit. If there has been damage to the fire handle wire routing but not the fuel switch wires and you pull the fire handle first, you've lost the ability shutoff the fuel. Fuel switch first maximizes the ability to shutoff the fuel after a major failure.

Thanks much for the explanation!!

Our B-777 Operations Manual, Vol 2, should have included this information.

Maybe it's buried somewhere in there and I missed it.:ugh:

tdracer

8th Oct 2015, 14:57

BTW, it doesn't hurt anything to shutdown via the fire handle - we regularly do that during functional testing to make sure the circuit works. However it is important to then place the fuel switch in cutoff as well.

There was a case back in the early days of the 747-400 - at the end of a customer acceptance flight, the customer pilot reached up and shut down all four engines via the fire handle - then pushed them back in without setting the fuel switches to cutoff. That re-introduced fuel into the still spinning engines resulting in massive tailpipe fires and ended up overtemping all four turbines :eek:

wanabee777

8th Oct 2015, 16:20

Who picked up the tab for that costly mistake???:eek:

cessnapete

8th Oct 2015, 16:37

Boeing presumably, as said pilot became BA B744 Technical Manager.

eckhard

8th Oct 2015, 16:56

Referring back to why the Engine Fuel Switches are placed to OFF before the Fire Switches are pulled, on the 737 CFM (300/400) the Engine Start Levers shut both spar and main engine fuel valves, whereas the Fire Switches only shut the spar valves. I remember a crew I was training forgetting to move the Start Levers to Cutoff following an RTO and Evac scenario and wondering why the engines continued to run for about 12 seconds........

Good to see that on the newer Boeings the Fire Switches shut both valves.

tdracer

8th Oct 2015, 17:35

Who picked up the tab for that costly mistake???:eek:

Cessnapete is correct - Boeing ate it. Although it occurred on a customer acceptance flight, the airplane still technically belonged to Boeing.

And here I'd intentionally not specified who the guilty operator was :rolleyes:

Eckhard, 12 seconds is fast - on most of our current aircraft it takes about a minute before the engine shuts down if only the spar valve closes (been there, done that) :sad:

eckhard

8th Oct 2015, 18:28

Well, it was 20+ years ago. My memory may be faulty!

porterhouse

8th Oct 2015, 18:50

.
I may tell you an old trick from a composites repairman...
Thanks, but I go with the official FAA docs regarding 787 fuselage flammability and that for me closes the subject.

hunterboy

8th Oct 2015, 18:59

Sounds like the sort of thing the Bionic Carrot would have done....his mishaps could have filled a line book.

amicus

8th Oct 2015, 19:54

Kindly read AAIB final report concerning Ethiopian Airlines ELT fire at LHR and hopefully you will withdraw you contention which is totally incorrect. Also read final USAF report fe B2A crash in Guam and kindly stop making specious claims, thank you.

r75

8th Oct 2015, 21:01

""Boeing do not want pilots routinely over riding the fire switches as an inadvertent pull of the switch requires a massive engineering input.""

I can second that!

grounded27

8th Oct 2015, 23:45

Determined to be what was expected, 8th compressor disk crack took out the 9th and 10th as well severing a fuel line.

Accident: British Airways B772 at Las Vegas on Sep 8th 2015, rejected takeoff due to engine fire, engine failure uncontained (http://avherald.com/h?article=48c10434)

alexb757

9th Oct 2015, 00:34

I agree 100% with Spooky! My experience matches his description to a T. Post #598, a few pages back.

Since I was on scene within a minute or so and witnessed the fireball, smoke plume, slides deployed and gathered some of the evidence after................:eek:

ILS27LEFT

9th Oct 2015, 09:50

Thanks Alexb757, your input is always really appreciated.
Also check my post #354 when you have a second. It is on page 18.
I have seen many times in serious "fire" incidents that cockpit-based info alone is rarely sufficient to assess the outside situation hence a 3rd pilot can make a huge difference as in this case. Each second saved to initiate an evacuation means saving lives.

A note on cameras and airplanes:
even the new buses and trains in London nowadays have multiple cameras installed to cover the entire cabin sections but also external areas, including double deck buses as an example, I still do not understand why Boeing and Airbus do not install multiple cameras pointing at fuselage, wings, engines, tyres, etc, cost is minimal compared to a few years ago. In case of warning/fault on any of the most critical aircraft parts the applicable camera could be quickly watched to see what is happening outside.

philbky

9th Oct 2015, 12:38

Super VC-10

9th Oct 2015, 16:04

The A380 does have a number of external cameras which, on some airlines, are also available as part of the passenger entertainment package.

I thought that practice had been abandoned after AA191 in 1979, where the passengers were able to watch their impending doom. :ugh:

philbky

9th Oct 2015, 16:14

Used the camera segment of the entertainment package on two Lufthansa flights in the last 6 weeks. The tail mounted camera gives an excellent view of the aircraft.

DaveReidUK

9th Oct 2015, 16:30

I thought that practice had been abandoned after AA191 in 1979, where the passengers were able to watch their impending doom.

The lawyers representing the victims certainly claimed that that had increased the passengers' suffering, though I suppose you could argue (no disrespect intended) that even the most infrequent traveller would already have worked out that banking beyond the vertical on takeoff means your day isn't going to end well.

While external cameras are still in use, I don't think that live cockpit video feeds (also on AA191) survived long after that event.

alexb757

10th Oct 2015, 00:44

Thanks Alexb757, your input is always really appreciated.
Also check my post #354 when you have a second. It is on page 18.
I have seen many times in serious "fire" incidents that cockpit-based info alone is rarely sufficient to assess the outside situation hence a 3rd pilot can make a huge difference as in this case. Each second saved to initiate an evacuation means saving lives.

ILS27LEFT:

Thank you. I have re-read that post of yours from last month and couldn't agree more!

It was all a team effort that paid off. And yes, quite serious. KLAS has not seen an "alert 3" in a few decades.

Sidebar note: as a result of us (airport authority) responding to the real thing and the debrief, the Feds waived our mandated three-yearly disaster exercise which was already planned in another 4 weeks after the BA incident.....:ok:

Tinymind

10th Oct 2015, 11:40

Boeing presumably, as said pilot became BA B744 Technical Manager.

And a very good one as far as us ramp engineers in LHR T4 were concerned. He had a considerable background technical knowledge of the aircraft was always ready to help us out and was a great help during the first few years of 747-400 operation.
After this incident I understand he offered his resignation, which was not accepted by company.
And no hunterboy, it was not the Bionic Carrot.

cprior

12th Oct 2015, 04:30

Have no passport and not a US citizen, you will enjoy the hospitality of immigration custody

Being so called "SLF" and silent reader this piece of information is what I always assumed would happen. I will act accordingly (in the unlikely event).

Spooky 2

12th Oct 2015, 09:28

vectisman

12th Oct 2015, 19:19

Has there been any firm decision yet about the aircraft being repaired or declared a write off?

V.

Spooky 2

13th Oct 2015, 14:01

As it turns out the evacuation order was given prior to the right engine being shut down according to those close to the investigation.

As it turns out the crew did just what they had been trained for. The fire was out, the checklist was completed and then low and behold they were told they were on fire.

overstress

13th Oct 2015, 18:30

Perhaps there will be a briefing this week from the Boeing users conference
being held in Seattle. Might be one or two things that we have not heard about yet that will open our eyes to the "what if this was me" scenario?

If it was you, Spooky2, we would be endlessly dissecting and Monday quarterbacking your every move here on PPRuNe, just as you are doing to the crew concerned....

Spooky 2

13th Oct 2015, 20:13

Sorry Overstress but I remain clueless as to where you're going with that thought. Never have been critical of the crew. I do suspect that there will be changes to the RTO so this kind of thing does not happen again. Thank God the RP was there to go back in the cabin at the Commanders direction to check on things.

overstress

13th Oct 2015, 22:17

In which case my apologies, I must have misinterpreted your posting above, re-read it and I'm not sure what point you are making?

Spooky 2

14th Oct 2015, 09:36

No problem:) probably my writing without the brain fully engaged. It happens like that once and awhile.

My point was the crew did a perfect RTO then moved down to the ECL and did the engine fire shutdown at which time the "engine fire" was extinguished. They were in the process of starting the APU when the Commander asked the 3rd pilot to check on the cabin, which he did. To his surprise the there was fire outside the cabin so he returned to the flight decked and advised the two pilots that they had a serious fire condition. Then they ordered an evacuation....

As stated before the fire was from line fuel that had spilled on the ground when the 2 inch fuel line from the firewall to the engine was severed. Approximately 40+ gallons spilled on he ground and was ignited. There was another 80 gallons still in the pipe. The engine fire was out, but the fuel fire was the problem now. Being that the crew could not see this from the flight deck and as far as they were concerned their fire problem was over I think they acted like any of would have given the same circumstances up to that point. The evacuation may be a different story.

Lehane Willis

19th Oct 2015, 12:28

Very common theme in multiple incidents, year in year out, including this one: PIC and F/O cannot see what is happening externally behind the cockpit, leading to sub-optimal decision making.

On many aircraft even the passengers can see what is happening beneath/ ahead of the aircraft (and with their own eyes what is happening with wings/ engines) ... why shouldn't the pilots have a similar facility during an emergency? Why should they rely on second-hand reports from relief pilots or cabin crew?

Surely fixed cameras covering both wings (plus/minus beneath fuselage) would be useful in these circumstances? Cost: Unknown, but surely not completely prohibitive. Seems strange to me that pilots should have such massive instrumental knowledge about their aircraft, yet have such limited visual situational awareness. Even my SUV has better rearward visibility with an effective camera.

booke23

17th Dec 2015, 20:06

British Airways jet that caught fire before takeoff at McCarran to fly again | Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/british-airways-jet-caught-fire-takeoff-mccarran-fly-again)

Looks like they're not going to write it off.

oliver2002

22nd Dec 2015, 14:10

Flightglobal confirmed the repair in KLAS by BA.

Reverserbucket

22nd Dec 2015, 14:17

I heard a trailer yesterday evening for a Radio 4 programme with Chris Henkey describing his experiences of the event, to be broadcast over Christmas; I've looked but can't see it listed on the BBC website.

readywhenreaching

22nd Dec 2015, 17:11

doubtful to me they spend dozens of millions for a 16 year old ship. There are so many sections and structural elements affected. Insurance would pay anyway.
An unprecedented repair like this is likely to be pricier than buying one from the desert or 2nd hand.

DaveReidUK

22nd Dec 2015, 18:03

doubtful to me they spend dozens of millions for a 16 year old ship

You don't think that the reports it's going to be repaired are correct? I'll admit to being surprised that it is, but there is no reason to suggest that it has been misreported.

Insurance would pay anyway. An unprecedented repair like this is likely to be pricier than buying one from the desert or 2nd hand.The insurers will likely have been party to the decision to repair the aircraft.

hunterboy

22nd Dec 2015, 18:29

More like BA don't want to join Malaysian Airlines in being the only airlines to have written off 2 777's, whether it was an accident or not.

Tay Cough

22nd Dec 2015, 21:44

Perhaps figure lifetime operating costs for a new build 777 into the equation.

Maybe the manufacturer was keen to avoid another write-off as that could affect future insurance premiums for all hulls...

msbbarratt

23rd Dec 2015, 10:11

Maybe the manufacturer was keen to avoid another write-off as that could affect future insurance premiums for all hulls...

Well if it did have an affect that would hardly be fair - the 777 has been extremely good for many years now.

Arguably even the incident involving BA at Heathrow shows that given half a chance the 777 will keep everyone alive and mostly unharmed in the most trying of circumstances. That should have a positive affect in premiums.

booke23

23rd Dec 2015, 13:57

I must admit I was also surprised when I heard they were going to repair it.

Some interesting comments on possible reasons for repairing it. I wonder what the current availability of 777 airframes is like. Obviously a new 777 will normally have a long lead time, which might influence the decision to repair. But what about used airframes in storage.....perhaps there are just none available at the moment which had perhaps made a repair the better option for the airline.

keesje

23rd Dec 2015, 15:33

It seems Boeing / GE don't want a BA 777 write-off because of an exploding GE90.
Then there is that 2011 FAA 777/GE90-85 AD GE & Boeing tried to kill.
Returning it to flight cleans the track record.
GE picks up the ticket it seems.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03433/vegas2_3433621b.jpg

llondel

23rd Dec 2015, 17:20

If Boeing/GE want it fixed then I assume they're going to be eating the costs, because BA and their insurers will presumably have an upper limit on what they're prepared to pay to fix it.

RatherBeFlying

23rd Dec 2015, 17:46

Given the apparent thermal weakening of the wing attachment structure, a fuselage and left wing replacement should do the job;)

SeenItAll

23rd Dec 2015, 18:13

All of this talk about BA/Boeing/GE/insurers making decisions to repair or not to repair based on wanting to avoid a bad record or reputation are bunk. First, all of these entities are sophisticated profit-maximizing entities. They will make their decisions based pretty much completely on the basic economics of whether repairs cost more or less than the replacement cost of the frame. Note that based on recent statements by Delta Airlines, used B777's are going quite cheaply, so the cost of these repairs cannot be more.

Further, while if you bang up your automobile, you may decide to repair it privately so as not to alert your insurer and maybe cause your rates to rise, this situation is completely different. The incident has occurred and has been widely publicized. Every airline or insurer who has an interest in these matters already knows that this BA B777 had an engine failure and fire. If it is going to affect BA's insurance rates or BA's or Boeing's or GE's reputation, it already has. No repair/replace decision made now will affect things.

DaveReidUK

23rd Dec 2015, 18:44

Rwy in Sight

23rd Dec 2015, 19:18

They will make their decisions based pretty much completely on the basic economics of whether repairs cost more or less than the replacement cost of the frame. Note that based on recent statements by Delta Airlines, used B777's are going quite cheaply, so the cost of these repairs cannot be more.

Since the repair will be carried out by Boeing and GE personnel using spare parts of those companies so (with a small experience in the transport sector) these companies can influence the cost of the repair by (a) suitable pricing. I know there limits to how low you can invoice something but they know what prices to give to avoid a write off.

Regarding stock price I am not sure how much an impact of a write off would last.

Rwy in Sight

keesje

23rd Dec 2015, 23:34

I'm almost sure the cost for the planned repair are several times as high as the restvalue of this 16 yr old 777.

In a write off scenario, we would have to take out al re-useable, valuable parts of the BA 777, such as the remaining engine, landing gear, APU, cockpit and Avionics bay LRU's, controls,flaps, actuators maybe interior and see what value is left in the badly damaged airframe.

E.g Delta bought a reasonable complete 10 yr old 777 for $8 million recently.

I guess this repair including all dramatic structure replacements, testing and recertification is going to costs easily over $25 million, maybe 50. In a few years A350 start streaming in with BA and this then off standard, heavier 777 is probably the first to go.

It seems economics is not the top priority in this project, other things are just more important.

SeenItAll

24th Dec 2015, 04:44

It seems economics is not the top priority in this project, other things are just more important

If economics were not important to airlines, why are they so hell-bent on shrinking legroom, raising baggage and other fees, charging you for food in-flight, etc.? So they can afford to pay $50 million to repair an airplane for that they could replace for $15? I don't think so.

DaveReidUK

24th Dec 2015, 07:11

If economics were not important to airlines, why are they so hell-bent on shrinking legroom, raising baggage and other fees, charging you for food in-flight, etc.? So they can afford to pay $50 million to repair an airplane for that they could replace for $15? I don't think so.

As explained in the previous posts, it's not the total cost of the repair that's relevant here, it's the contribution that individual parties (in particular BA) that's important.

Clearly Boeing and GE aren't about to buy BA a replacement aircraft (even if it only costs $15 :O), but it's equally obvious that they are both going to contribute towards the cost of getting the aircraft flying again. Much of that cost will, of course, be labour and based on past experience a significant part of the work will be done by a Boeing team.

So BA, or its insurers, will end up being on the hook for far less than the amount quoted (and $50 million is a ridiculously high estimate anyway).

keesje

24th Dec 2015, 07:49

"($50 million is a ridiculously high estimate anyway). "

Hi DaveReidUK, could you please explain why $50 mln is a ridiculously high estimate?

For reference; an GE90-85 costs about $15 mln, a 777 Heavy check (without damage) around $10 mln and we are not engineering / replacing / testing / certifying any wing attachments, spars, floor beams, stringers at that stage.

The QF A380 VH-OQA exploded engine repair costed approximately ~US$145m.

http://www.aussieairliners.org/a380/vh-oqa/0380.019l.jpg
Qantas A380 to Fly Again 18 Months After Engine Explosion - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-19/qantas-a380-flies-again-after-repairs-cost-near-new-price)

Why do you feel this BA 777 would be so much easier and cheaper? (see previous page 33). I think $50 million is on the low side.

Regarding BA, I think BA isn't more demanding than that they want to be compensated for the capacity loss, image damage as soon as possible. If Boeing e.g. gave them a substantial discount on their next five 787-9's they probably would be ok. Where the money is coming from is of less interest. GE is a $150 billion company, they can handle :) and maybe want to sell some 777-9s to BA later on.

anartificialhorizon

24th Dec 2015, 08:18

Here we go again, around in circles.

The cost of repair has to be economic to insurers who will be footing the bill for the airframe repair. Probably in the region of US$15 million maybe? Therefore when taking into account the agreed value in the insurance policy, economic to repair.

GE (if found to be a warranty type issue),or BA, will fund the engine repair/ replacement bill.

Not so simple to go out and buy a replacement aircraft, even if cheaper. Engine life, commonality, AD/ SB status are all factors which make repairing your own aircraft more attractive.

keesje

24th Dec 2015, 11:34

DaveReidUK

24th Dec 2015, 14:11

Apparently for GE it is more economic / convenient to pick up the tab & get it over ASAP, then to explain the NTSB, FAA, public, Boeing, BA, customer base what exactly happened and why

I don't see any reason to suggest that GE are planning to suppress information on what happened inside their engine, or that they won't cooperate fully with the NTSB's investigation.

zonoma

24th Dec 2015, 14:33

Aircraft to be fixed not long after a hefty lawsuit is launched? I'm sure the lawyers would find it easier to get a substantial payout after an accident that writes off an aircraft, where as by fixing it the defense can play the situation down and say that the aircraft wasn't critically damaged as it is now flying again. It will not be the only reason, I'm sure there are lots, but it would add weight to the economics of fixing it even if it doesn't make direct financial sense.

SeenItAll

24th Dec 2015, 16:15

Apparently for GE it is more economic / convenient to pick up the tab & get it over ASAP, then to explain the NTSB, FAA, public, Boeing, BA, customer base what exactly happened and why for the next 10 years.

This will be the most expensive "repair" to a Boeing 777 ever. Similar to the exploded engine QF A380 repair. That one was less damaged & new.

This paper is also on an NTSB desk. It is better to discuss an aircraft already back in flight, than one on public display in Las Vegas. Common sense.

Keesje: since you obviously know so much about not only the cost of airplane repairs but also the inside scoop on what major corporations are doing to deceive their sophisticated customers and regulators about the true (according to you) defective nature of their products, I suggest you hire yourself out as a consultant. If, as you suggest, these companies are willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for repairs in excess of the cost of replacement just to cover over these issues, your inside information about this will be worth millions. Good Luck.

SpringHeeledJack

24th Dec 2015, 16:16

Back in september, someone mentioned to me that it would be repaired because of a shortage of airframes. As said, it's probably a mixture of reasons many mentioned previously.

Spooky 2

24th Dec 2015, 17:50

The fact is no one on this website has a clue what the costs are to repair this aircraft, much less the lost revenue incurred or the diminished value of the aircraft is. Most just talking heads so far...

wanabee777

24th Dec 2015, 18:10

The Dynamic Airways' 767 at FLL appears to still be awaiting repairs.

Spooky 2

24th Dec 2015, 18:24

"The Dynamic Airways' 767 at FLL appears to still be awaiting repairs."

What does that have to do with this accident?

wanabee777

24th Dec 2015, 20:23

There are some similarities.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/569839-dynamic-airways-767-catches-fire-fll-miami-ft-lauderdale.html

keesje

24th Dec 2015, 20:54

Well, looking at the Qantas A380, how much would you estimate the damage?

Then find the actual price tag & look at the BA 777.

Simply saying it asin't so is a little too easy if one fails to bring up any substantiation

:)

G-CPTN

24th Dec 2015, 21:27

Qantas A380 Flight 32 compensation and repairs costs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32#Compensation_and_repairs).

Spooky 2

24th Dec 2015, 23:30

The 767 fire and the 777 fire have little if anything in common other than being a fuel fed fire. Glad you're not on the investigating committee.

wanabee777

24th Dec 2015, 23:59

....So am I!

Una Due Tfc

25th Dec 2015, 08:13

A standard D or heavy C check on a tripler costs 12-15 million dollars so this will be an awful lot more expensive than that.

atakacs

28th Dec 2015, 07:40

Seems that the going rate for the 777 is pretty low these days:

Delta to buy used Boeing 777 for $7.7 million | Airframes content from ATWOnline (http://m.atwonline.com/airframes/delta-buy-used-boeing-777-77-million)

Is this some oddball transaction or relevant to current market ?

atakacs

28th Dec 2015, 07:45

I have no idea what the repair will cost but I can vouch for the 12-15mn figure for a D / heavy C check.

You might also find this tidbit (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/572403-10-year-777-200-7-7m.html) interesting.

I muss say that as other posters I don't see the economic case for a repair of this airframe.

Nemrytter

28th Dec 2015, 08:23

Maybe it's the one that BA burned in Vegas:E

SeenItAll

28th Dec 2015, 09:59

Delta has been very coy about this transaction. As pointed out in other threads, the value of a frame to Delta will depend on whether it is configured (e.g., engines) the same way as its others, time to next C/D check.

Indeed, for all we know, Delta could have bought this frame to be a parts donor.

dastocks

28th Dec 2015, 10:02

I think Delta's 777 fleet are all with Trent engines so one would assume they would buy a used airframe with Trent engines.

Are there any used GE engined airframes available at a similar price? BA might be happy to acquire a replacement airframe with Trent engines but I don't imagine GE would be ready to hand over their business to a competitor.

Super VC-10

28th Dec 2015, 12:31

Question

What are the obstacles to buying an aircraft with one manufacturers engines and replacing said engines with another manufacturers engines?

Could this be a possibility? :hmm:

philbky

28th Dec 2015, 13:59

Re Question....where do you want to start?

As BA has both GE and RR engined 777s replacing with a second hand machine with either engine type, preferably of the same sub type, would be presumably cheaper than a repair were there to be one available in reasonbable condition.

DaveReidUK

28th Dec 2015, 14:34

What are the obstacles to buying an aircraft with one manufacturers engines and replacing said engines with another manufacturers engines?

Could this be a possibility?

Not without an approved modification scheme being devised, which would presumably have to be developed with the cooperation of both engine manufacturers and Boeing, and the resulting airframe would end up as a bastardised one-off.

So, no, it's a non-starter.

Spooky 2

28th Dec 2015, 14:51

Maybe someone else has posted this earlier but I believe the 777 that DAL purchased came from a leasing company that had the aircraft on lease to Malaysian Airlines. It will be parted out.

While technically possible the GE/Trent conversion would be impractical. The last time I saw that done was to a Saudi MD11 that went from GE to P&W and I have since heard it went back to GE's. Go figure that one out.
Keep in mind that just about anything is possible if you throw enough money at the project. Does not mean that its smart, wise or prudent. I doubt that Boeing would ever get behind a sex change like that and would simply withhold engineering and performance data needed to certify the project.

under_exposed

28th Dec 2015, 18:33

If BA were to buy a second hand airframe would it need a C/D check above the purchase cost?

Non-Driver

28th Dec 2015, 19:37

If BA were to buy a second hand airframe would it need a C/D check above the purchase cost?

Depends entirely on where it is in its maintenance cycle. That would of course be a factor in its value.

BDD

29th Dec 2015, 03:43

I don't know anything about this, but could it be they are repairing the aircraft
just so they can claim no hull loss? Could a hull loss effect insurence costs?

BDD

peekay4

29th Dec 2015, 04:11

Highly doubtful.

Aircraft insurance payout is based on a pre-agreed value. If the repair cost is less than this agreed value, then the insurance company will opt to repair.

So the most likely explanation is simply that the aircraft was overinsured. This can easily happen because the agreed value remains constant for the length of the insurance contract, while the aircraft's actual value depreciates over time.

yotty

29th Dec 2015, 19:07

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/20151901.pdf/AD_US-2015-19-01_1 This AD has escalated the 18,000 FH chk on the engine spar valve to 10D / weekly inspection.

Maxan_Murphy

29th Dec 2015, 20:39

*Speculation*

MAB are (were) flogging a few 777-200's from 2004 with Trent engines, might be them selling low out of desperation.

Spooky 2

30th Dec 2015, 01:37

Speed News shows six or more MAS 777 available. Sounds like they are getting out of the 777 business?

martynj3

30th Dec 2015, 09:55

Widely reported:
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/whither-malaysia-airlines-restructuring-plan-223300377.html

No Fly Zone

30th Dec 2015, 10:28

What is the real point of these 35+ pages of chatter? Not a single one of us really knows the end cost for repairs - or the as-is value of this air frame. The ONLY parties able to make that call are those bidding on doing the repairs (Boeing?) and what contributions RR and BA's insurance carrier will make. In the end, the decision will be made by BA. They will either repair it or offer it in the market (at a "Fire Sale" price) and move on. :ugh:

DaveReidUK

30th Dec 2015, 10:54

The ONLY parties able to make that call are those bidding on doing the repairs (Boeing?) and what contributions RR and BA's insurance carrier will make.

Why would RR be involved? It was a GE engine.

Spooky 2

30th Dec 2015, 16:35

alexb757

20th Feb 2016, 16:52

Can't say anything about costs of repairs but for the past 3 weeks it's being undergoing repairs on the west side of the cargo ramp, being re-skinned by Boeing and its contractor. Quite a project, was under a big white tent with 24 hour round the clock work. That has now been removed.
As of yesterday, the tail has been put back up and I believe they did a gear swing and fueled the aircraft. New GE engine back on.
Also, the work site has had visitors from senior BA officials, one of the FOs from the incident flight and perhaps others.
It is due an engine run sometime next week and if all goes well, a ferry flight out after that.
I expect the media will be in full force for that one :ok:

curiousflyer

21st Feb 2016, 15:00

What are the obstacles to buying an aircraft with one manufacturers engines and replacing said engines with another manufacturers engines?

Qantas took a handful of B767's off of BA in the 90's. These were RRs. The rest of the QF 767's were GE and they never changed the engines to make them common, so not sure if they can do it that easily.

There are sometimes other configuration issues associated with the types of engines making them non-interchangable.

lomapaseo

21st Feb 2016, 16:47

There are sometimes other configuration issues associated with the types of engines making them non-interchangable.

New nacelle/reverser

New Pylon

Modified wing balance

new instruments

tdracer

21st Feb 2016, 20:21

While swapping engine types is not "impossible", it is cost prohibitive - aside from nearly everything under the wing being different, much of the interface wiring is different (as just one example, Rolls has a heated inlet probe - roughly 500 watts aircraft power with the associated aircraft wiring, circuit breakers, etc., while GE's inlet probe in unheated).

As you may know, Boeing put two versions of the CF6-80C2 engine on the 767 - "PMC" and "FADEC" (PMC being a hydromechanically controlled engine with a 'supervisory' electronic control). Occasionally an operator has come in and asked to convert a CF6-80C2 767 from PMC to FADEC. Once they heard the cost (several million dollars) they quickly lost interest. Swapping between engine manufactures would be even worse.

Initially Boeing attempted to make the 787 engines 'plug and play' but I don't think it worked out...

OwnNav

21st Feb 2016, 22:19

Hope they ask Chris to come out of retirement to bring it back.

LlamaFarmer

21st Feb 2016, 23:12

Just been reading through this again in light of the new posts, and came across this which I recall having thoughts on previously but not mentioning at the time...

PIC and F/O cannot see what is happening externally behind the cockpit, leading to sub-optimal decision making.

why shouldn't the pilots have a similar facility during an emergency? Why should they rely on second-hand reports from relief pilots or cabin crew?

I haven't had an RTO yet, (a couple of low-speed discontinued takeoffs aside, due to unhappy ECAMs and whatnot) and hopefully never will for the remainder of my career, but for all I know it could happen on the next flight.

One thing I brief every time at the end of the emergency briefing is that we have a sliding window each and following an RTO and immediate/memory actions have been completed, we can open them to allow us a better view of whats going on outside/behind with regard to the engines, and allows us to make a better decision.

As we saw in this instance, just because an engine is shut down and there are no associated eng fire warnings remaining, it doesn't mean the situation is not very serious indeed. Had there not been a third flight crew member, how long might it have been before they knew they needed to evac?
Possibly only once chatting on 121.6 or whatever the RFF frequency at the airfield is, or if ATC inform them.

Having done numerous RTO drills in the sims though (as well we should, we all need to know it perfectly, inside out, back to front, upside down, so that on the day we do it for real, when the adrenaline is flowing, we perform it "well enough") I have noticed that you are very focussed on the task in hand, so much so that you don't notice any radio chatter unless actively focusing on it. In one sim detail I recalled hearing "ATC" saying something but had no idea what, I imagine it was important/relevant, but it only registered as noise not words, I was too busy crosschecking the memory items and ignoring a continuous cabin call ding (but not the emergency ding ding ding) to shut down one of the engines.

I think it could be quite a bit more time before they realised, had things been slightly different (i.e. no 3rd pilot, higher speed at reject and therefore stopping much further down the rwy)

ozslf

22nd Feb 2016, 11:25

It is due an engine run sometime next week and if all goes well, a ferry flight out after that.

"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"... unless you're a BA 777??

Volume

22nd Feb 2016, 11:55

Well, all the parts that were affected by what happened will most probably stay in Vegas (or on a dump near by...)

MATELO

23rd Feb 2016, 10:12

Patched up.

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2016/2/23/448760/default/v2/comp-1-1-736x414.jpg

http://news.sky.com/story/1646936/ba-jet-that-went-up-in-smoke-to-fly-again

YRP

23rd Feb 2016, 13:51

That is one heck of a big piece of speed tape. :) :) :)

YRP

23rd Feb 2016, 14:09

As of yesterday, the tail has been put back up

Just curious what you mean by this? Was the tail removed during the repair?

SilverdartNS

23rd Feb 2016, 14:18

Sometime back Atlas bought some used B747's and changed the engines to CF6's so that their fleet had all standard engines. However It is not something that you see being done very often.

FullWings

23rd Feb 2016, 16:10

That is one heck of a big piece of speed tape.
You should have seen the roll it came off... :ooh:

bbrown1664

23rd Feb 2016, 16:36

The tail fin was removed and sitting beside the fuselage when I flew in two weeks ago. The bulk of the fuselage was hidden by the big white tent.

I guess it was removed to help stop any wind effect on the fuselage as they did the repair.

TURIN

24th Feb 2016, 11:29

Is that a massive re-skin or just where the paint was removed for inspection?

beamender99

24th Feb 2016, 14:56

Is that a massive re-skin or just where the paint was removed for inspection?

See post #51

airsound

24th Feb 2016, 16:38

MateloPatched upIt looks as if they've managed to re-use the door!

airsound

tdracer

24th Feb 2016, 17:47

TURIN

Replacing a fuselage skin panel is no big deal - it actually happens more often than you might think after ground handling mishaps that cause significant skin damage.

Volume

25th Feb 2016, 07:49

It looks as if they've managed to re-use the door!
It looks like they found a cheap previously owned door...
There are memainders of a livery on the lower end, which are not BA

Plastic787

25th Feb 2016, 07:53

Unless we're looking at a different photograph those "remainders of a livery" actually is the upper portion of the W from British Airways. It looks incongruous because the rest of the typeface is missing from the fuselage in that location.

airsound

25th Feb 2016, 07:54

Volume There are memainders of a livery on the lower end, which are not BA I think you'll find, dear thing, that the markings exactly match the top of the 'W' in the lower picture....

airsound

sorry - crossed over with Plastic787

Wycombe

26th Feb 2016, 21:27

.....looks to be airborne as I write on a test flight out of LAS as BA9172.

alexb757

26th Feb 2016, 21:40

As someone who was intimately involved, I can confirm that 6 months after the incident and almost 45 days in repair at KLAS/LAS, the aircraft departed the field a little over an hour ago. I saw it depart. No other BA 777 scheduled at that time and the repaired skin patches were clearly visible!
Good job everyone and next time you see G-VIIO in full livery operating a scheduled, revenue flight, just reflect for a moment its history! :ok:

alexb757

26th Feb 2016, 21:44

That is one heck of a big piece of speed tape.

You should see the one the other side!!! ;)

Wycombe

26th Feb 2016, 22:04

.....after a tour of Nevada and Arizona, and a climb to FL430, she now appears to be descending into VCV (which isn't usually a place for aircraft that are about to re-enter service!).

tdracer

26th Feb 2016, 22:48

.....after a tour of Nevada and Arizona, and a climb to FL430, she now appears to be descending into VCV (which isn't usually a place for aircraft that are about to re-enter service!).

I beg to differ - I'd think the folks in Victorville would have a great deal of experience in preparing an aircraft for return to service.:ok:

alexb757

27th Feb 2016, 00:43

Ditto your remarks, tdracer!

As I happened to know more than the "average Joe" about this subject, it is indeed bound for Victorville, CA (VCV) for painting and maintenance checks required before returning it back into service.

VCV is less than a 30 min trip from LAS, so is the nearest facility that does that kind of work and with an appropriate RWY too!

And like many other "boneyards" around these parts (Marana, nr Tucson, AZ for another) have engineering staff that have a lot of experience in getting previously laid up or "stored" aircraft back in to revenue service. Indeed, I myself flew an older 757 out of the Tucson facility en route to Algiers via Bangor, MA about 10 years ago. Interesting trip, if you can get it!

Wycombe

27th Feb 2016, 06:00

Yes guys, I know that kind of thing happens at VCV aswell, it was a bit of British irony ;-) bearing in mind that BA (or their insurers) are probably spending quite a lot to get an 18 year old triple7 back into service.

Many younger aircraft go to the boneyards and don't come out.

LASJayhawk

27th Feb 2016, 15:00

Local paper story on the departure, has a nice pic of the lady leaving Las Vegas.

Jet that caught fire on McCarran runway has left Las Vegas | Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/jet-caught-fire-mccarran-runway-has-left-las-vegas)

7478ti

27th Feb 2016, 17:31

VCV is home to lots of interesting stuff... not necessarily a sign of a boneyard!

For example, the superwhale and baby plastic jet were both recently extensively tested there (and the -8 even did a 1,000,000+ lb. MTOGW type record there), ...as well as a lot of "New type" engine testing is done there.

The long obstacle free runway is great (albeit a bit rough in spots), the WX generally reliable, and VCV is adjacent to some great testing airspace and related resources.

As to being up at FL430, that is pretty typical for an FCF (or for a re-fly of a B1 profile) following any significant MX or modifications.

simfly

27th Feb 2016, 22:32

Didn't BA first few 788's go to Victorville after entering service for some mods? Vaguely recall them going there after flying to AUS one at a time...

KelvinD

27th Feb 2016, 22:37

Indeed they did. Can't remember the details now but I seem to remember software was part of the mods.

Onceapilot

9th Mar 2016, 17:26

Just love the way every opportunity to slag "British" comes into the reporting. No mention of the GE responsibility for this. :bored:

champair79

16th Mar 2016, 07:39

On her way back to the UK - BAW9179 (VCV-CWL) following repaint. :D

Data Guy

30th Mar 2016, 20:29

AD Issued. Root Cause still out There.
Excerpts Only, Use Link for full texts.
2015-27-01. GE90-76B, -77B, -85B, -90B, and -94B engines with high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool, part number 1694M80G04, installed. SUMMARY: This AD requires performing an eddy current inspection (ECI) or ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection. This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, leading to an airplane fire. Effective January 27, 2016. Compliance by; (1) Perform an eddy current inspection or ultrasonic inspection of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool for cracks as follows: (i) For HPC stage 8-10 spools with serial number (S/N) GWNHC086 or GWNHB875, inspect within 150 cycles-in-service (CIS), after the effective date of this AD. (ii) For HPC stage 8-10 spools with S/N GWNHC154, GWNHA455, GWNHC153, or GWNHB516, inspect within 300 CIS, after the effective date of this AD. (2) Remove from service any HPC stage 8-10 spool that fails the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD and replace the spool with a spool eligible for installation. Discussion. We received a report of an HPC stage 8-10 spool uncontained failure resulting in an airplane fire. Ongoing investigations have determined that a crack initiated in the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC 8-10 spool and propagated until spool rupture. The root cause of the crack initiation is not yet known. Costs of Compliance. We estimate that this AD affects 1 engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $780,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $780,595. Link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/70e7b9e69301df4186257f380054ed8a/$FILE/2015-27-01.pdf -----------------------------
Prior ADs With mentions of HPC spools web cracks.
2009-07-03 – 80 series, 2002-25-08 – 45/50, and – 80s, 99-24-15 - 50 and -80 series,
For Full AD and Details, Query By AD number at FAA’s AD Query website; Link > Airworthiness Directives (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet)

Wirbelsturm

7th Apr 2016, 15:32

Required parts cost about $780,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $780,595.

Wow, the cost of certified engineers replacing a major part of a huge gas turbine, with the associated aircraft downtime, costs less than a service and having the cam belt changed on my car!

No wonder tickets are cheap!

Real world? Possibly not!

QA1

7th Apr 2016, 17:02

Taken from 2009-07-03 comments:

One commenter, FedEx Express, states that it appears that the proposed AD costs of compliance total to U.S. operators of $594,500,
is inaccurate and might be the cost of a single spool replacement, rather than the accumulated total of the proposed action,
if the estimate of 10 affected units is accurate.

We agree that the proposed AD total is inaccurate.
We had a typo in the proposed AD costs of compliance. The total cost should have been $5,594,500.
We corrected the total in the final rule AD.

notapilot15

7th Apr 2016, 18:22

onceapilot

It is always airline's responsibility, doesn't matter who did what. BA cannot rewrite rules.

Wirbelsturm

7th Apr 2016, 18:38

Not sure where the comma issue is but the FAA state that an engineer is $85 an hour (7 hour fix at $85 an hour = the $595 difference), even BMW charge £100 an hour for labor!!!! I just find it laughable what the manufactures assume and the operators charge and the engineers get paid.

Irrespective of who bears the brunt of the costs this was an issue that had been flagged up to GE prior to the incident through NDT and endoscopic investigation.

I have a feeling that some fairly hefty costings have been done behind the scenes in this recovery!

As to a Billion it was always 1 Million x 1 Million in my schooling! Perhaps that's why I'm poor! :ok:

Airbubba

15th Nov 2017, 16:48

Lots of good reading in this NTSB accident docket:

https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=59741

This actual excerpt from one of the BA manuals reminds me of that infamous non-handling, non-landing pilot procedure joke making the rounds two decades ago. ;)

General

The following allocation of duties is specified for the workload associated with normal operation. However, the Commander must assess any exceptional workload associated with nonnormal conditions and assign revised duties as necessary.

i. P1 and P2 roles must be allocated for every flight. Each flight starts with:

a. PF duties undertaken by P1.
b. PM duties undertaken by P2.

ii. It is British Airways policy to employ a monitored approach policy. Prior to top-of-descent:

a. PF duties are undertaken by P2.
b. PM duties are undertaken by P1.

iii. For a planned manual landing PF duties revert to P1 if:

a. Stable Approach Requirements are met; and
b. Visual Reference Requirements are met.

iv. For a planned autoland PF duties revert to P1 if:

a. Stable Approach Requirements are met; and
b. The aircraft passes 1000 R.

Note: Only BA Captains, or First Officers undergoing Command Conversion Courses and occupying the left-hand flight crew compartment seat, may operate as P1 during Low Visibility Operations. The definition of Low Visibility (OM A 8.22.1 Low Visibility Operations) is subtly different from that specified for First Officer handling limits, defined in BA as Take-off in less than 600 m RVR or Landing in worse than Cat I conditions.

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59999/59741/602177.pdf

tubby linton

15th Nov 2017, 18:29

Airbubba

15th Nov 2017, 19:04

Document 9 is far more revealing, especially the nonsense of changing over thrust lever handling in an RTO.I am thinking of how BA can justify it and am left without any answers.
Document 17 shows how Boeing suggest it should be done,

I believe you mean to say Operations Group Attachments 9 and 17, the document numbering is different:

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59999/59741/602179.pdf

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59999/59741/602187.pdf

blind pew

16th Nov 2017, 07:55

The Genesis comes from the Trident..certainly the most difficult aircraft to fly on approach especially with the BEA procedures. Recently a very old manager admitted that they had made a mistake..the mistake being believing that by training up “wunder mensch” to pole the aircraft whilst P1’s contribution was to guard the auto throttle (we weren’t allowed manual throttle) then everyone and anyone could be a captain.
This philosophy was certainly reflected in the Staines, Bilbao and Heraklion accidents; it may have been a factor in the Heathrow flypast as at the time of the captains conversion the board had apparently put the training department under pressure to pass all. BEA had a policy of everyone was fit for command whereas BOAC rightly did not.
Ps there was talk in the mid 70s of putting the captain on the third seat and let the co pilots do the flying, presumably to reduce the appalling accident rate. Unfortunately some of our management infiltrated BOAC when BA was formed and took their ideas with them.

cessnapete

17th Nov 2017, 07:08

Yes the Monitored Approach still lingers on in BA.
Not universally popular. On the formation of GSS the separate BA cargo B744 operation, the Chief pilot was ex BEA and a fan of the MA system. The new crews gathered from several airlines including ex BA not so impressed with the old BEA system. It was put to a vote and as a result GSS flew the aircraft the “normal” way. Allowing much needed handling practice of the whole sector from take off to landing,when in suitable weather and no continuous A/T SOP. Autopilot out A/T out.
A friend of mine on the BA A380 in 2 years has never manually flown the aircraft much above 1000ft even in CAVOK, usually being handed control for landing off a coupled approach at 500/800 ft when on an ILS with mandatory full time A/T.
No wonder accidents due poor manual handling continue to occur.

wiggy

17th Nov 2017, 07:10

FWIW As I recall well post Trident days the 744 went with Boeing procedures initially but eventually things changes..

As for the 777, fortunately, fingers crossed can't speak for the efficiency of the current BA method outside of the sim, but there does seem some at least some logic to the BA way....but both parties have got to remember to do their bits.

Tay Cough

17th Nov 2017, 07:22

Manual handling with autothrust engaged is not permitted on the approach in the 747-400 with BA, nor is it on any other BA type with a pitch-power couple (767 and 737 as was).

wiggy

17th Nov 2017, 07:59

Re BA SOPS (i.e. not GSS) and autothrottle, etc.....the 744 -

1. What TC said...the SOP was/is autothrottle out if manually flying the aircraft.

A friend of mine on the BA A380 in 2 years has never manually flown the aircraft much above 1000ft even in CAVOK, usually being handed control for landing off a coupled approach at 500/800 ft when on an ILS with mandatory full time A/T.

I'm not versed in the 380 but reasonably up to speed on ULH ops at BA....with that in mind..

Landing pilot (:p) not supposed to take control above 1000 feet...etc...that's true...but it doesn't routinely have to be a coupled approach down to that point, so unless there is a fleet specific rule there's no reason why your friend can't hand fly the bird down the approach if they are the non landing pilot, before the 1000 'handover, if conditions permit...

As part of the descent brief I always mention if I think it's a good day for hand flying and encourage my colleagues to knock the autopilot out if conditions are suitable...good grief, even knackered old me can hand fly a 777 down from F240 on a good day on an early arrival into LHR and most of the guys I fly with can manage to hand fly off the LHR holds and produce an acceptable ILS whilst also pondering: "WTF is this Bovington hold our American friends are on about....." ....

In your friends defence I'd say being a FO or SFO on a ULH fleet doesn't give you much opportunity for hand flying ( 'cos of the dilution in stick time due to heavy sectors, not because of BA SOPs) but that has always gone with the territory...if your friend really wants to fly the aircraft they need to speak up more during the descent brief and discuss the matter....this idea that BA somehow ban hand flying is nonsense..

akindofmagic

17th Nov 2017, 08:39

this idea that BA somehow ban hand flying is nonsense..

ATHR/ auto throttle OFF is banned on FBW fleets though? (Or is that a myth?)

wiggy

17th Nov 2017, 08:56

It's as Tay Cough described ( personally I don't agree with that bit of the SOPs, but we are stuck with it) - obviously (?) that is not the same as a ban on hand flying the other "bits" when appropriate
(up/down/left/right etc..:8)

cessnapete

17th Nov 2017, 18:32

Full time mandatory speed control by A/T is not manual flying in my book! Speed control using the throttle/ thrust lever is just as important in maintaining your flying skills.
Shows up in the very poor single engine thrust control shown by the pilot handling, after engine failure, in the BA Airbus which took off with an unlatched cowling.

Apparently done once every 2 years in the sim!

c_coder

18th Nov 2017, 01:23

Wallet and passport can fit in your pockets

Same here but I am a guy, with pockets. Women are more likely to keep their stuff in a bag and rules about unsecured objects require that those bags be in the overhead locker or under the seat in front of you. A lot of people are too tall to put bags under the seat so it has to be put in the locker.

Airlines could address this by providing a way for passengers to safely carry essential items. They could also establish a rule that luggage never goes on a slide but can be thrown under the body of the aircraft and potentially recovered later if the owner really has to take it with them.

c_coder

18th Nov 2017, 01:53

And if said fire was in an overhead compartment and the central locking couldn't unlock it because of burnt wires etc. so the crew could get to and extinguish the fire?

I suppose you could make it fairly safe by using normally open switches to power solenoid controlled latches. That way the lockers would be unlocked by default. If power is lost they will unlock. But the cabin crew could hold the locks on in the few seconds when the passengers are starting for the exits. They would back that up with commands to run and leave the bags.

wiggy

18th Nov 2017, 06:38

Speed control using the throttle/ thrust lever is just as important in maintaining your flying skills.

I wouldn't disagree but we are stuck with the SOPs.

On the rare occasions anyone in the "head shed" has tried to justify the policy the logic rolled out is that the safety benefits of using auto throttle (e.g. low speed protection, reduced landing dispersion) out weigh the increased risk...

Regardless of whether an autopilot out/autothrottle in approach can be called hand flown or not I would agree it is deskilling...I personally don't like the policy, I think autothrottle/auto thrust should be optional but as I said on the line we are stuck with it so please don't shoot the messenger....

4468

18th Nov 2017, 15:13

In BA....

Being unable (on fbw fleets) to take out autothrust, is a right royal pita! But typical misguided arse covering!

Monitored approaches have advantages and disadvantages.

PM selecting reverse is no major problem, but it's not how the manufacturer designed the a/c nor how it recommends it's operation. For years now I've heard that BA are on the brink of PF operating their own reversers. We shall see.

ULH does not lend itself to being well practiced in manual flying. Frankly the overwhelming majority could probably be described as 'rusty' at best. Flying into and out of the busiest airports in the world, when tired, are not the greatest places to 'give yourself a bit of practice because you're rusty'!

But....

Unlike many airlines, in BA we are able to access sim practice. That's where we should be practicing if we feel rusty. Not in Class A airspace! There's also no ban on manual thrust in the sim. So if you consider yourself a professional, take advantage of the system in place! It's not just to practice for your upcoming check!

There's no excuse!

And anyone in an A380, or any aircraft for that matter, who has never flown it above 1000'.. Clearly just doesn't want to!