BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas [Archive]

AN2 Driver

9th Sep 2015, 03:03

I'm interested in what would have happened if it had been post V1, and the pilot just proceeded to take off given a normal engine failure post v1.

The question is, what would have happened if they had been comitted to getting it in the air. Possibly with the fire actions on that engine, the fire might have extinguished and the flames blown straight back, so away from the fusellage. Thereafter, it would have been a normal one engine out landing. In which case, with the fire out, dumping might have been a consideration.

If the fire would burn on, that is fire extinguishing via shut offs and fire bottles unsuccessful such as in the event of the uncontained failure damaging fuel lines or a tank and it feeding the fire, then an immediate return and landing would have been necessary. There are quite a few runways around Las Vegas which can take a 777, yet with the fire equipment and all probably it would have meant a direct return to McCarran.

I remember that also in the British Airtours case in Manchester there were discussions of the "what if" type. What would have happened if they had gotten it in the air with the failure happening after V1? Quite possibly, they would have been all right, as the engine could have been secured and a normal OEI landing made. The really dangerous bit about an uncontained failure of this kind is when stopping with the engine still on fire. But if it happens before V1 that is what must happen.

In any case, it appears that also here the airplane was heavily damaged, possibly the cabin integrity lost if I look at some pictures. The fire services did a fantastic job to be there so fast and contain the situation.

LASJayhawk

9th Sep 2015, 03:43

Nellis AFB might be a good option? Miss NLV and you are hitting houses, miss Henderson and your into terrain. Failed return to KLAS and you have the houses again. Nellis would have the runway, emergency equipment and minimize the the houses and terrain issues.

But keep in mind, I fix'em, I don't fly'em. :O but that is right over my house, so please don't miss.

herman the crab

9th Sep 2015, 03:51

Not being the tough guy just stating what most know to be true. As already stated by others people had time to collect their carry on - I might die but I must die with my bags?!

Not suggesting that people weren't scared but now they're safe I doubt that being safe is now a higher priority for some than how they can profit from this.

I spent many years in front line emergency service and saw the sad compensation driven progression from "Thank f&*& I'm alive" to "What can I make out of this."

HTC

pattern_is_full

9th Sep 2015, 03:59

I think there must have been a secondary effect to get this big a fire from an engine failure - loss of engine controls to cut the fuel (a la A380/Singapore), or shrapnel damage to a wing tank that then fed the fire.

The flames (and soot, once the smoke cleared) seem to be on the inboard side of the engine, not centered on the core.

I guess we'll get closer and sharper pix, and more details, fairly rapidly.

BTW - I heard at least one interviewed SLF comment on the "crazy people" who stopped to collect carry-ons. So some passengers do understand the situation.

ZFT

9th Sep 2015, 04:09

At least maybe the 'carry on' problem will be now accepted as a global issue and not just a developing world issue.

mickjoebill

9th Sep 2015, 04:11

The first fire appliance raced to the scene with its four floodlight masts raised???

Mickjoebill

bud leon

9th Sep 2015, 04:25

The first fire appliance raced to the scene with its four floodlight masts raised???
Mickjoebill

Whether or not done on purpose, that would be a good way helping ensure evacuating passengers can see it

etrang

9th Sep 2015, 04:28

Some pax are always going to take their cabin luggage with them in an evacuation, its an instinctive reaction. Its been demonstrated in every evacuation and airlines know this very well. If you want to stop pax taking hand luggage off a burning plane the only way to do it is not to let them take it on in the first place.

If you want to blame someone or prosecute someone then try the airlines.

bud leon

9th Sep 2015, 04:31

But I was a little surprised to see smoke going towards the fuselage in today's incident. Is there any recommendation to turn in the last few seconds of movement to leave the fire on the downwind side, or would this probably have been done and it's just unfortunate that a light and variable wind varied shortly afterwards?

You can see from the plume the wind is very light especially at ground level. The plume moves towards the front of the plane when it gets higher. When winds are that light it's almost impossible to find upwind, and indeed fires can create their own wind.

blind pew

9th Sep 2015, 05:18

Would these excellent crew be some of those who BA are handing a massive salary cut or redundancy to?

Ranger One

9th Sep 2015, 05:18

Whether or not done on purpose, that would be a good way helping ensure evacuating passengers can see it

IIRC the masts aren't just lights; they have cameras too, give the fire chiefs a better view of what's going on, from a different perspective.

LTNman

9th Sep 2015, 05:21

Central locking overhead lockers when taking off and landing would have stopped passengers taking their luggage down the chutes.

slatch

9th Sep 2015, 05:22

Hitch, there would be 2 local controllers on duty ( one for each pair of runways ) and a supervisor. The supervisor would be calling approach control to cancel ops to 07L. The two planes she sent on a missed were switched to tower before they got the message. After that the Supervisor will talk with emergency services to see what reserve equipment was available. If all emergency equipment was dispatched to the event they would prepare to terminate all operations. KLAS has multiple Emergency buildings. Normally only one is called. If the first on scene Boss thinks its needed, all are dispatched and all operations halted.

chillpill

9th Sep 2015, 05:33

Would these excellent crew be some of those who BA are handing a massive salary cut or redundancy to?

There is one thing that professional pilots will always do in an emergency, irrespective of any background issues... they will do their job. Well done guys.

wiggy

9th Sep 2015, 05:51

chillpill

There is one thing that professional pilots will always do in an emergency

I rather suspect given the header blindpew's comment about "crew" was in reference to the LGW cabin crew operating the flight.

In any event well done to all the crew

turker339

9th Sep 2015, 06:00

Central locking overhead lockers when taking off and landing would have stopped passengers taking their luggage down the chutes.

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?

d71146

9th Sep 2015, 06:06

I just cannot believe the numbskulls coming off the plane with hand luggage and even 'ankle bashers' in tow which could have easily damaged the slides and added to the problems.

787PIC

9th Sep 2015, 06:12

A testimony to the training and professionalism of flight and cabin crews.
I wish I could say that about those dummies who were sliding down the shoots with their luggage in hand.
The BA 777 that crash landed in Heathrow had a problem with the Spar Fuel Valve not closing. I wonder if the same problem reoccured in this case?
Fortunately, the crew and the aircraft are all alive and well and available for scrutiny by the investigators as to why the fuel was still pouring onto this fire!

Tourist

9th Sep 2015, 06:16

I would take my hand luggage if possible.

Wallet, phone and passport are a big deal.

Trossie

9th Sep 2015, 06:18

... nevertheless I can also understand why passengers desperately want to take their carry on luggage as it most probably contains your wallet, passport, medication and other documents.Wallet and passport can fit in your pockets. Everything else is less important than lives.

With the information available so far, this looks like 'text book' handling by all the crew and airport services.

Whiskey Zulu

9th Sep 2015, 06:19

Lives, including yours are much more important!!

log0008

9th Sep 2015, 06:20

Close up of the damage

http://image.airlineratings.com/articles/12002892_10153765476108714_3033120918736925359_n.jpg

Kranky

9th Sep 2015, 06:20

I have been out of the industry for a little while and for me now, as a paying pax, cabin baggage certainly in Australia is of real concern. I'm astounded by the amount and size of bags pax are allowed to board with.....no questions asked. When I was in the industry, some 5 years ago, cabin bag size and weight were a big issue for the airlines.
Now that appears to have gone by the way.

Airlines say safety is their priority but allowing large, heavy bags into overhead lockers surely presents safety issues as well as longer boarding and disembarking. It looks like airlines just can't make pax understand and so are now not enforcing their own policies:ugh:

On my last 2 recent flights, it would not have been pretty if we needed to make an emergency escape.
Glad everyone got out of this one. Well done to all::D:D

White Knight

9th Sep 2015, 06:22

Wallet and passport can fit in your pockets. Everything else is less important than lives.

Correct. Mine are in my pocket - and I keep my shoes on until we are in the air!

Very well done to the crew... A good outcome to a nasty event.

gcal

9th Sep 2015, 06:38

A professional job by the crew and only a pity that the cabin crew are about to right royally shafted by the company.

dera

9th Sep 2015, 06:39

Writeoff, no question about it.

snowfalcon2

9th Sep 2015, 06:45

Flightradar24 track indicates that BA2276 stopped approx 600 metres / 1800 ft from the start of the take-off run. Wonder what that suggests in terms of when the engine failure happened, and what speed the airplane reached?

EDIT: I found the speed/alt information graph for the flight, indicating that the airplane accelerated to a top speed of approx 78 kts at 23:12 UTC, before coming to a stop at 23:13.

The track suggests a rolling take-off, as the speed stays above 0 starting from 23:03, and is approx 20 kts just before the take-off run.

Don't know how accurate FR24 is at these low speeds, though.

Fortissimo

9th Sep 2015, 06:45

The industry needs to tackle the issue of baggage and ground evacuations. The evacuation demo required during certification is (AFAIK) completed with all the overheads closed. Opening an overhead could impede the escape route for someone else, having large bags at the doorways certainly slows things up, and bags have been responsible for serious pax injuries on and around the slides.

I have been advocating central locking of overheads for several years now, as it would provide the only guaranteed means of stopping pax retrieving bags. The argument about in-flight fires is valid, which is why I would link operation to the evacuation alarm. That way, you only lock the overheads on the ground when starting an evacuation. Alternatively, you could opt for locking at the 'crew to stations' point or as part of the SOP during an emergency return when an evacuation seems probable.

TWR

9th Sep 2015, 06:45

mary meagher

9th Sep 2015, 06:48

The last time a BA 777 needed to send the pax down the slides was at LHR a few years back; icing in the heat exchanger of the Rolls Royce engines at a very critical moment on approach.

This time General Electric engines, apparently an older type that has been modified according to B-HKD, posted at 0.249 Sept. 9 on this thread. Some contributors have suggested if the takeoff had been continued the engine fire may have been more easily contained. And as engine fires do happen now and then, will this one be investigated as thoroughly as the RR problem?

ExXB

9th Sep 2015, 06:50

Hand luggage? What is ok to take with you, and what isn't? A ladies handbag, of indeterminate size? A 'personal item' as defined by some airlines? A laptop? A small zip bag? An IATA approved cabin bag?

The airlines require you to take on board all your valuables (they refuse liability for valuables in checked bags), your documents and your medications.

They ask you to leave these behind in an evacuation with no knowledge of if or when they will be returned to you. Obviously returning property will not be a priority after an incident.

On the other hand there is no suggestion that in this incident the selfish bar-stewards actually caused any delays, damage or other problems during the evacuation. (I am not saying this didn't happen, just that we have not learned that it did). I can't recall mention of any problems with other recent evacuations.

Is this really a problem?

Ranger One

9th Sep 2015, 06:51

Too soon to speculate about the cause, but this event and QF32 raise a question.

Jet engine cowlings have shown to be able to contain the debris in case of a compressor blade/turbine blade failure at maximum RPM (as per certification reqs), so why were these two failures uncontained ?

I know nothing, same as everyone else here.

A blade failure should be contained. A disk failure cannot be contained.

Looking at the close-up of the damage, my first reaction would undoubtedly get me moderated for language. My second reaction is that it's a very good thing indeed they didn't have to take that into the air...

flt001

9th Sep 2015, 06:52

Note the pressure plugs on the tyres haven't burst, suggesting there wasn't a brake fire as well?

wiggy

9th Sep 2015, 06:56

mary

Some contributors have suggested if the takeoff had been continued the engine fire may have been more easily contained

All very well in theory...perhaps...maybe....... but I do hope no-one is suggesting taking a fire (any fire) into the air from below V1.

My second reaction is that it's a very good thing indeed they didn't have to take that into the air...

Mine as well.

Fortissimo

9th Sep 2015, 06:56

ExXB,

Yes it is a problem. It causes delays and injuries, often for others, and it puts pax and crew at increased risk in scenarios such as this one. Cabin bags can be 20kg plus and will accelerate as they go down the slide, just as their owners do.

Five Green

9th Sep 2015, 06:58

Its not about the size of the carry on. Its about the time it takes to get the carry on out of the bins or out from wherever, and the resulting delay in evacuation that will lead to deaths if the fire gets inside the passenger compartment !

Who cares about valuables or medication if you have burnt to death or through your actions caused the death of someone else.

FG

Cows getting bigger

9th Sep 2015, 06:59

Wheelies down chutes is possibly not as important an issue as chutes deployed on the side of the fire.

I'm sure that there will be an extremely thorough investigation (FAA and BA).

TWR

9th Sep 2015, 07:03

A blade failure should be contained. A disk failure cannot be contained.

Good info, thanks !

Mr Oleo Strut

9th Sep 2015, 07:07

Thank goodness they all got off. A miracle and great tribute to the crew. As regards personal stuff - wallet, phone, keys and some meds, in zipped pockets or in a bag round my neck at all times. A bit lumpy but secure. Shoes left on till after take off.

bloob

9th Sep 2015, 07:09

I have been advocating central locking of overheads for several years now, as it would provide the only guaranteed means of stopping pax retrieving bags.

I guess one question is whether that would actually be safer. It might guarantee they don't get their bag, it doesn't necessarily guarantee they'll get off faster or more safely.

It could just mean you'd have a bunch of people struggling trying to open overhead lockers and getting in the way of others rather than moving down the aisle with their bags...

It's one thing to try and design better systems, but they need to accomodate how people actually behave, not how you'd like them to.

TDK mk2

9th Sep 2015, 07:09

Cows getting bigger;

A lot of the evacuation seems to have been through the L4 exit which is far further from the fire than the R2 exit. Why the preoccupation with finding out why they didn't only use exits on the right, when some of those may not have been useable and L4 clearly was?

Metro man

9th Sep 2015, 07:11

The emergency exits are some distance from the engine and the extent of the fire may not have been immediately apparent to the cabin crew. Difficult to say, evacuate on one side only and take twice as long or get everyone off as quickly as possible fearing another China Airlines 737 inferno.

The only things certain about an emergency evacuation is that it will be chaotic and each case will be different.

Fifth hull loss on an otherwise very safe and reliable aircraft. 2x MAS, 1x Egypt Air and previous BA.

wiggy

9th Sep 2015, 07:12

cows

Wheelies down chutes is possibly not as important an issue as chutes deployed on the side of the fire.

Really? I suspect :oh: the cabin crew are told to assess the hazard at their door and assess/deploy accordingly, AFAIK in their SOPS there's never a blanket ban on using a whole side.

It's a big hull - Looking at the images here, some grainy, I certainly don't see any one in officialdom taking issue with the use of 1L or 4L.

susier

9th Sep 2015, 07:13

Copied from Twitter (Jacob Steinberg):

'They opened the back door and slide went down and smoke started coming in plane, followed by mad dash to front. A lot of panic'

He doesn't state which side the 'back door' was on.

Dave's brother

9th Sep 2015, 07:15

A lot is being written yet again about how stupid passengers are who grab their hand luggage during an emergency evacuation. Well, yes, but only up to a point, in my view.

Despite the regular calls for people to be fined, then jailed, then hung, drawn and quartered for being so life-endangeringly dumb, can I ask that you consider a few things.

* I know PAX get the pre-flight safety briefing and some of them even read the card and look around for their nearest exit, bearing in mind it might be behind them. But they haven't ever actually been through this experience before. They haven't been through the mock but realistic 'OUT OUT OUT' evacuation drills that the crew have gone through. They have never been through anything like this before in their lives.

* And so - in a highly-stressed, totally unfamiliar situation - one which they have only seen in movies - their brain reacts weirdly. It tries to make sense of what's going on. It tries to re-establish some normality. "The plane has stopped, I must get my hand luggage."

* Perhaps the people sitting over the port-side wing, looking at the flames and smoke, thought to themselves, "Gosh, I really must get off this airplane just as tickity-boo as possible." (Or words to that effect which the moderators on this website won't allow.) But perhaps the passengers on the starboard side 20 rows back thought, "This is a bit weird. Oh well, grab the bag and go..."

* To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced about the argument that people think they need to get their passport or medication (how many people have medication with them on the flight? A lot fewer than try to take their hand luggage in an emergency, I suspect). But perhaps we can conclude that their are different motives for doing so - however weird, unacceptable or possibly understandable they may be.

So now, have a read of this: it's from an Airbus training document on "Unplanned Ground Evacuation" (as distinct from "Unplanned Airborne Evacuation"? Never mind - I digress).

It is important to note that during evacuations, especially when there is a possible life-threatening situation, passengers may react in many different ways, such as by:
• Panicking (screaming, crying, hysteria)
• Freezing up (not able to react)
• Not being aware that danger exists
• Pushing
• Exiting with carry-on baggage.

Carry-on Baggage

Many studies, such as the Safety Study conducted in 2000 by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and investigation reports document the fact that in some cases, it was necessary for the cabin crew to argue with passengers because passengers attempted to carry baggage to the exits during emergencies (in one case, the evacuating passenger tried to exit with his guitar!).

Carry-on baggage brought to the exits can cause blockages and congestion at the exit and in the aisles, and reduce the efficiency of the evacuation.

An Australian Transportation Safety Board (ATSB) report in 2001 reported that in an accident that occurred in 1999, some passengers were authorized to take baggage with them as they evacuated the aircraft. When the cabin crew attempted to enforce that passengers leave their carry-on baggage behind, the passenger flow from the exit became less orderly.

This example illustrates an important point: If the cabin crew gives the command to passengers to leave their carry-on baggage behind during the evacuation, this may be too late.

Therefore, the cabin crew should instruct passengers to leave their baggage at the beginning of the evacuation. Some examples of possible commands are:
• "Open seatbelts, leave everything"
• "Open seatbelts, no baggage".

The cabin crew can also include this information in the passenger pre-flight safety briefing in order to reinforce the message, i.e.: "If an emergency evacuation is necessary, leave all your belongings behind."
Have a look again at that first paragraph:
It is important to note that during evacuations, especially when there is a possible life-threatening situation, passengers may react in many different ways, such as by:
• Panicking (screaming, crying, hysteria)
• Freezing up (not able to react)
• Not being aware that danger exists
• Pushing
• Exiting with carry-on baggage.

So instead of automatically calling passengers idiots, it might be better to devote your energies to calling on your superiors and employers to press for industry research into how people react in stressful situations and how to anticipate that, plan for it and design airplanes around that fact. Locking the overhead lockers sounds like a great idea, but might just add another element of confusion and result in more people blocking the aisles. But we need some research.

Oh - and in that Asiana crash (http://www.fodors.com/community/air-travel/retrieving-luggage-before-emergency-evacuation.cfm), apparently, "MANY of the pax grabbed personal items because they had FALLEN OUT of the bins and were blocking the aisles, and the FA's were telling people to grab the bags."

Snapshot

9th Sep 2015, 07:17

Well done BA and a great photo of the hostie looking as if she is containing and directing the pax! It's ALWAYS about the training isn't it! "Train hard fight easy!"

A lot has been said about cabin luggage, human behaviour in a situation like that by those who have never experienced such drama and fear shall always be unpredictable! That wont change.

I wonder how many had their shoes off before taxi?
I have advocated for many years that the safety brief should contain "Do not remove foot ware until the seat belt light has gone off"

An incident during take off, twisted metal and/or slides and running across tarmac in a panic or the dark not ideal in bare feet!

Just my two penneth worth

jewitts

9th Sep 2015, 07:22

cooperplace

9th Sep 2015, 07:26

I think that inclusion in the safety video of footage showing 2 different evacuation scenarios could fix the problem of people evacuating with luggage.

The footage would be computer simulated and would show in a burning plane:

scenario 1: lots of people pause to grab luggage, so it takes 3 mins to evacuate, fire consumes the last 30% of the pax;

scenario 2: no-one stops, everyone gets out in say 90 seconds, then the fire takes hold.

This would have 2 effects: first, people might actually behave better if they had just seen this; second, if anyone did stop to grab a bag, everyone behind them would yell at them to drop it.

The problem is, people think "it will only take me 2-3 seconds to grab my bag" and they might be right. But those 2-3 seconds can add up to deaths for the last passengers.

This safety video needn't run for 3 minutes, but rather just enough to show the start and finish of each scenario.

heidelberg

9th Sep 2015, 07:28

Travelling Business with Aer Lingus requires one to have their shoes ON during takeoff and landing - this NEW requirement was introduced 2 years ago.
I wonder why it doesn't apply to ALL PAX - front and back?

log0008

9th Sep 2015, 07:29

On the bags, i heard a few reports that the plane was stops for around 60 seconds before the evacuation was called, maybe some pax grabbed bags during this time knowing they would be having to exit quickly?

rolling20

9th Sep 2015, 07:29

Obviously I wasn't there and a good job was done by the crew. My only concern was why the port side slides were deployed? It may be that no one deployed from that side? Surely it would have been a lot safer to deploy only the starboard side away from the fire and possible area where an explosion risk was most?

Aerostar6

9th Sep 2015, 07:32

BA own about the same number of GE engined -200 aircraft as RR Trent powered types.
We still have 3 of the original GE -76 "A market" short range -200s ply the UK to east coast routes, whilst the longer range -85 powered models are used world wide, but lack the range and bunks of the longer legged Trent models.

BA evacuation procedures require the Fuel Cutoff Switches to be operated BEFORE the Fire Switches as a relic of the days before the Fire Switch was modified to automatically shutoff all of the fuel pump/spar valves. AFAIK, all BA aircraft have been modified since the BA38 incident.

DuncanF

9th Sep 2015, 07:32

* And so - in a highly-stressed, totally unfamiliar situation - one which they have only seen in movies - their brain reacts weirdly. It tries to make sense of what's going on. It tries to re-establish some normality. "The plane has stopped, I must get my hand luggage."
I suspect this is why locking of overhead lockers, as has been suggested, may be counter productive. You will now find aisles blocked by confused, panicking people wondering why they cannot open the overheads and looking/waiting for someone to unlock them and wasting time deciding whether to wait for the "unlock" or to leave without their . All to the possible detriment of others ...

Nemrytter

9th Sep 2015, 07:33

I think that inclusion in the safety video of footage showing 2 different evacuation scenarios could fix the problem of people evacuating with luggage.The first problem is getting people to watch the safety vid. The majority of people don't seem to bother.

bud leon

9th Sep 2015, 07:36

Regarding deployment of the port slides, it's apparent that there would have been smoke visible on both sides of the aircraft.

LTNman

9th Sep 2015, 07:37

Originally Posted by LTNman
Central locking overhead lockers when taking off and landing would have stopped passengers taking their luggage down the chutes.

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?

Just make the central locking engage when a constant voltage is applied. If power is cut or turned off then it defaults to release.

The Golden Rivet

9th Sep 2015, 07:42

Could it be that what ever exited number 1 engine at 4 o'clock elf (hpc , turbine?) bounced off the tarmac and up into the fuse severing fuel lines or opening the centre tank and that's where the fire was concentrated?

RexBanner

9th Sep 2015, 07:49

Well done to the crew for remaining so composed given the clear size and intensity of the blaze. Also very well done to the fire crews at McCarran for dealing with the problem so swiftly and effectively. I know it's their job but credit where credit is due for a job well done. Not been mentioned too many times so far in this thread.

blue_ashy

9th Sep 2015, 08:13

TWR - With respect to disks - the energy these things are running at coupled with the totally random nature of a failure makes it inevitable that they will be uncontained. The goal of the compressor area is to raise pressure but this obviously raises temperature with it. The second you introduce fire or temperature within the casing, you are raising the temperature outside of the normal operating zone placing materials beyond operating limits and failure becomes inevitable. The subsequent release of energy however is subjective and completely dependent on so many factors. As such, sometimes a disk failure event is contained and sometimes it isn't but the energies and highly random nature of a failure makes it impossible to really contain.

The Qantas failure was also not a failure of the casing exactly, it was a defect in an oil stub pipe which fed oil to the LPT area which is already running at high temperature, oil leaking into this area makes a fire and failure of some kind inevitable. The eventual domino effect release of energy is just something the casing cannot cope with, not one made of lightweight alloys anyway. Most work is done to prevent a failure ever occurring rather than to mitigate the failure. Disks are therefore designated as safety critical because they will endanger flight if they fail so failure is not something that should ever really happen. Diligent operation, preventative maintenance and also good design are the main reason we rarely see disk failures so it would be worrying if one has occurred here.

In this case, it is hard to judge from the images and accounts so far but speculating I suspect the fire was mainly precipitated by oil but it is not possible to say why or how. The passengers and captain's account of what happened during the takeoff will reveal far more about this I am sure. Personally I am just glad this aircraft did not make it into the air.

andrasz

9th Sep 2015, 08:14

It is in a first world city. Passport and medications will be replaced as a priority

Wrong, as far as immigration procedures are concerned it is third world at its worst. Have no passport and not a US citizen, you will enjoy the hospitality of immigration custody courtesy US taxpayers until your embassy manages to arrange replacement papers, which can take days. We had a couple of rerouted pax on the AF 340 that wens off the end of the rwy at YYZ, some obliged with the no hand luggage during evacuation, their reward was spending the night and the next day at the immigration holding room. Those morons who carted all their belongings off were put into the airport Sheraton at AF expense...

expat400

9th Sep 2015, 08:18

oscarisapc

9th Sep 2015, 08:18

I am pleased nobody was seriously injured in this incident but BA long haul is less likely to have problems with hand baggage in an emergency evacuation than the low cost short haul carriers such as Ryanair mentioned above. They actively discourage passengers from putting luggage in the hold and have also relaxed their previously strict carry on policy in an attempt to be more “passenger friendly”. On my last flight with Ryanair in the summer, passengers were struggling with two carryon bags, blocking the aisles as they boarded and disembarked which undoubtedly would also have happened in an emergency evacuation. My primary irritation at the time was the fact that there was no overhead locker space remaining and my carryon bag had to go into the hold anyway. There was nothing in the safety briefing about leaving bags behind in the event of an emergency evacuation although plenty about putting on a lifejacket in the more unlikely event of a survivable ditching. Should the safety briefing be updated from what was appropriate in piston propeller days and be more suited to purpose for modern aircraft?

etrang

9th Sep 2015, 08:19

It's pointless ranting about how stupid passengers are for taking hand luggage down the slides. Ranting about it isn't going to change a single thing.

Quite true. But every time there is an evacuation, ppruners come out of the woodwork to whine on about how stupid pax. They make the same comments every time, every single time. They do it because it makes them feel superior. Its rather like the those who, in a crash thread, rush to be the first to post METARs.

Mikey56

9th Sep 2015, 08:27

anengineer expresses the luggage down the slide problem perfectly. If there is a problem with luggage in this sort of scenario, and it looks very much as if there is, then the solution is unlikely to be to ask people nicely to behave in a certain way. Dispassionate analysis required. Jacob Steinberg in today's Guardian, who was on the plane, describes things from the passenger viewpoint very well - worth a read.

Sober Lark

9th Sep 2015, 08:30

A perfect example of the real reason we have flight attendants on board. Our safety.

No doubt lessons learnt from this incident will contribute to our collective knowledge on how passengers act in an emergency situation.

lurkio

9th Sep 2015, 08:33

With ref to Sober Lark's post has anyone got a copy of the poster that was around many years ago with the caption

Flight Attendants, there to save your butt not kiss it.

A copy should be up in every crew room worldwide.

DaveReidUK

9th Sep 2015, 08:42

13 crew and 159 pax, of whom 13 or 14 (reports vary) suffered minor injuries during the evacuation.

That seems an unusually high proportion (around 8%). Without wishing to fuel the hand baggage debate, I wouldn't be surprised if hurling carry-ons down the slides turns out to be implicated in some of those injuries.

no sponsor

9th Sep 2015, 08:50

Getting your high viz is a good idea. Passengers can quickly identify you as crew, and it may help you in getting their attention to direct pax whilst on the apron.

Basil

9th Sep 2015, 08:56

Flight Attendants, there to save your butt not kiss it.
I would prefer not to see that sort of comment associated with my airline in which the cabin crew are polite to passengers in addition to being able to handle all sorts of emergencies from small to large.

stilton

9th Sep 2015, 09:01

People /passengers (and Pilots) are creatures of habit.

Locking the overheads sounds like a good idea until you realize that many passengers won't realize why they can't open them and stay on board desperately trying to open them up to get their bags possibly losing their lives as a result.

If they're going to take their bags you can't stop them, better to just get them off ASAP.

Pilots have been know to do the same thing in the past..

LLuCCiFeR

9th Sep 2015, 09:02

How many deaths have we had due to pax bringing hand luggage during an evacuation? What would be the cost of retrofitting all aircraft with central locking? Cost-benefit calculation anyone?

Get real guys. Focus on the big issues threatening air safety like working and employment conditions. Quite true. But every time there is an evacuation, ppruners come out of the woodwork to whine on about how stupid pax. They make the same comments every time, every single time. They do it because it makes them feel superior. Its rather like the those who, in a crash thread, rush to be the first to post METARs. Correct! :ok:

Unfortunately, a lot of the present generation aviation 'professionals' have downgraded themselves into "inside-the-box" thinkers who will blindly follow orders coming from middle/senior management.

"Button-pushers," "magenta-line-followers" and "minimum-rest-minimum-fuel-maximum-duty-pilots" is the result, and that's a MUCH bigger and more permanent danger to aviation safety than a handful of passengers taking their hand luggage during an evacuation.

Airlines are quite happy to throw out the baby with the bathwater by pushing more and more passengers into taking only hand luggage, so it's natural for passengers to take their 'vital' hand luggage even during an evacuation.
The governments and various 'authorities' up the ante by having turned our once free society into a virtual police state, making you feel completely vulnerable and 'naked' when stuck somewhere without your passport, wallet, some clean clothes/underwear and tablet PC/laptop.

Passengers take their hand luggage because they know they will be left to fend for themselves and completely at the mercy of governments/immigration authorities and airlines where you have to stand in long queues on order to get some lousy hotel/food/drink vouchers.

Trossie

9th Sep 2015, 09:12

... I wouldn't be surprised if hurling carry-ons down the slides turns out to be implicated in some of those injuries.Exactly. And if the relevant people won't prosecute those who have carried bags off, in direct contravention of instructions given and therefore breaking the law, then any passengers who have been injured by bags should sue the person whose bag injured him/her. A few very high profile cases (excuse the pun) will be needed to make the point. Stupidity is no excuse for endangering others.

As has been said before, you can keep your passport and you wallet in your pockets. All else is less important than a life. And an additional bit of common sense (that a couple of posters have already pointed out) is to keep your shoes on for take-off and landing: would you really want to be escaping over possible broken debris in you bare or 'socked' feet?

I just cannot understand the stupidity of people posting on here who somehow feel that carrying bags off in a situation like this is in any way condonable.

A300BOY

9th Sep 2015, 09:24

Stay on the runway and allow the fire vehicles room to move around the scene unrestricted plus not allowing the wind to blow the flames against the fuselage. Fine job by the crew and as someone already posted some important lessons from the past have played a part. Well done BA.

Ranger One

9th Sep 2015, 09:28

Looking at the close-up of the wing/engine damage aftermath, it looks like the main seat of the fire was away from the engine, at or under the wing fairing. Most of the fairing (composite) has burned away completely. The youtube videos also show the fire crews tackling that area first rather than the engine and cowling. I wonder how a 787 (composite fuselage) would perform under the same conditions?

The wing fairing?

Look, again, at the pic in post 53. There's a ruddy great hole - as in, maybe 15ft long - in the forward hold! If I was shown that photo cold, without knowing the story, I would have assumed a bomb had gone off in the forward hold. The fan is substantially intact; it *looks almost as if* one or more disks from the compressor or turbine have departed, and ripped up the fuselage.

As I said, repercussions.

Non-Driver

9th Sep 2015, 09:36

I just cannot understand the stupidity of people posting on here who somehow feel that carrying bags off in a situation like this is in any way condonable.

I don't see anyone condoning it, just people trying to explain what REAL human behaviour looks like in a random, chaotic, once-in-a-lifetime, terrifying experience. You can quote all the rules in the world and expect Joe Public to read ANO's at bedtime but you aren't being realistic so which camp is the stupid one ?

In the MAN 737 disaster recently anniverseried, the studies showed the majority of survivors were the ones who had an instinct to survive, not the ones with a pass in Air Legislation.

Xeque

9th Sep 2015, 09:38

John_Smith
I think you are absolutely right in what you say.
But (big but) which airline is going to be brave enough to incur adverse PR by bringing such cases to court.
The answer, to my mind, is to carry ALL passenger baggage in the hold.
I check everything and have a small hand bag with shoulder strap in which I carry my passport, ticket, boarding pass, wallet, MP3 player, a 7" tablet computer, mobile phone along with a small power pack that will give both a couple of full charges which keeps them going for my occasional 11 hour direct flights from BKK to LHR. It is 9" x 8" x 6" and sits on my lap during takeoff and landing.
I suppose people hope that they can exit the arrival airport quicker by carrying all their junk in the cabin with them but my experience these days is that once you get through the queue at immigration your checked baggage has usually been unloaded off the carousel and is sitting in a pile waiting for you to collect it.

SLF3

9th Sep 2015, 09:41

Any similarities with GVIID at IAH 12 Aug 2004?

A GE90 that let go just after take off.

I was on it: a lot less dramatic than this!

p.j.m

9th Sep 2015, 09:43

Hand luggage? What is ok to take with you, and what isn't? A ladies handbag, of indeterminate size? A 'personal item' as defined by some airlines? A laptop? A small zip bag? An IATA approved cabin bag?

Is this really a problem?

I think not (as did many passengers apparently) in this case, the plane didn't crash, it caught fire on the runway. Totally different scenario than an accident, where people would have been abandoning their luggage to save their lives.

Time will tell what happened, likely the plane would have extinguished any fire on its own, but the fire truck was right on it before the passengers were evacuating anyway.

As others have said, there was more danger from firetrucks running around like chooks with their hads cut off, running over and killing passengers, than from the fire.

Jorge Newberry

9th Sep 2015, 09:44

Maybe I am totally OCD but when I am travellling the mere idea of not having my passport/cards/one or two other vital bits and pieces on my person freaks me out.

pax britanica

9th Sep 2015, 09:47

On the issue of people taking bags with them its not right but is it preventable-people react in different ways under extreme stress and no matter what laws are in place may do the 'wrong ' thing. The only way is to reduce the amount of hand baggage on board from the ridiculous amount sometimes seen. In one of the pics on this thread a man in shirt is carrying what looks like a full size case from the burning plane.

I was on board a BA short ahaul flight in the exit row last week and the FA was very diligent about bags not being allowed under those seats much to the chagrin of the American pax sat next to me -he commented different airlines different rules but I am not sure who allows under seat bags in the exit rows in any country so despite seemingly a frequent flyer he was either unaware he was in an exit row or ignorant of the rules.I suppose if I was really nasty i could have called the FA back and said my seat mate isnt a suitable person to be flying in an exit row..

So you cannot stop this behavour but you can try to improve it- re inforce it in the briefing -cut down the ditching bit if you have to as there are seldom any ditchings anyway (or 'landings on water' to use the ultimate oxymoron ) .
Also encourage through publicity , travel agents , internet sites etc to keep your passport with you or, better yet, take a pic and store it on your phone as most people are surgcally attached to their phone and make sure immigration authories are properly briefed to treat accident victims as just that and not terrorists. Even the TSa might understand that the bad guys are unlikely to have peoplel in place on USA bound flights all a round the world 24/7 so someone can slip into the country when an accident happens saying -my passport is on the plane and it got burned.

People panic in spite of endless entreaties from cabin crew, police and Corporal Jones because it is NOT a controllable response -if it was no one would panic-so educate a lot and minimise the risk because you cannot eradicate reactions to risk completely.
PB

golf yankee one one

9th Sep 2015, 09:47

I have never had to go down an evacuation slide, and I just don't know how I would react if the cabin was filling with smoke - just like all the others I expect.
I do think however that the dichotomy expressed here between the flyerfolk who want passengers who take bags with them punished in some way, and the analysts of human behaviour who stress the unpredictability of human reactions in a crisis is a somewhat sterile one.
It is probably unrealistic to expect 100% compliance with instructions about bags, but if the proportion of passengers carrying bags, particularly heavy ones from overhead lockers, could be minimised, that would surely help.
This might be achieved if passengers were "nudged" by information and advice at all stages of the booking, check in and briefing procedures to think of cabin baggage in two categories. A passport, a phone, money,possibly medication, possibly a laptop are vital and irreplaceable to many people (and the difficulties and delays of continuing a journey without documentation have already been highlighted) and should really be kept with you in the seat. A change of clothes, toiletries, duty frees and all the other stuff in the overhead locker is much more easily replaceable.
I also think I remember some years ago thefts from overhead locker luggage, which is another reason for keeping your valuables as close as possible.
Although no bags/possessions at all will remain the counsel of perfection, implying that a very small bag (handbag/briefcase size) can be taken with you might be the best pragmatic option.
The suggestion that shoes should not be removed until seat belt signs are off seems eminently sensible, but I haven't come across that on any airline I have used.

slfie

9th Sep 2015, 09:47

Ranger One:
Look, again, at the pic in post 53. There's a ruddy great hole - as in, maybe 15ft long - in the forward hold! If I was shown that photo cold, without knowing the story, I would have assumed a bomb had gone off in the forward hold. The fan is substantially intact; it *looks almost as if* one or more disks from the compressor or turbine have departed, and ripped up the fuselage. There's a clearer (daylight) pic of the hold damage here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11852744/BA-plane-fire-why-did-the-Boeing-777-catch-fire.html) (telegraph.co.uk)

susier

9th Sep 2015, 09:49

I would respectfully suggest that 'hand luggage' should be just that - a bag you can carry on your lap or between your feet, nothing requiring stowage in an overhead locker. Certainly not a wheeled suitcase. Nothing that could injure anyone else by the sheer weight of it on an evac chute.

Seeing the size of some of the luggage in that photo has shocked me.

Iron Duke

9th Sep 2015, 09:51

I am delighted the Flight and Cabin Crew performed as we would all hope to do in this nasty situation .. and that everyone evacuated without serious injury ..

The close up photo of the fire damage left me with feelings of dread if this had happened after V1, and heavy weight fire fighting facilities were not immediately available ...

The last 2 paragraphs of LLuccifer's comment sadly carry some weight, as history has shown that after incidents like this people have been left "high and dry" .... wear your shoes until after take off and have your wallet and passport in your pocket ...

I.Duke

Swedish Steve

9th Sep 2015, 09:54

There's a clearer (daylight) pic of the hold damage

Where? I can see a picture showing that the wing/body fairing has caught fire and disappeared, I cannot see into the freight hold (but it is dark in there)

ozaub

9th Sep 2015, 09:57

Probably not a factor in this case but when will airlines switch to green exit signs?
Red means danger, don’t go. So 25 years ago the world began adopting ISO’s green running man exit sign. In Australia only places where red exit signs are still allowed is in the Senate chamber and on aircraft!
Jetstar’s 787s are an honourable exception – their greatest safety improvement may well be green exit signs.

worldoflard

9th Sep 2015, 09:59

Perhaps one possible solution here is to instruct passengers to ensure absolutely essential items (wallet, passport, medications) are carried in trouser/shirt pockets or very small purse/pouch from the moment they board.

Evacuation drills could be practiced with passengers carrying such items in order to verify they don't impede flow.

If tests are successful, suitable pouches could then be sold at airport terminals, and the evacuation rules slightly relaxed to allow passengers to exit with just this small item.

pcpmitch

9th Sep 2015, 10:00

I very rarely comment on these forums as I am not a pilot, I'm a safety/risk practitioner; however I have been involved in an emergency evacuation of a Dash-8 plane for a fire in the hold at BHD.

When the evacuation command came my partner and I were out of the plane PDQ, however I had to literally force the people in the row in front of me to evacuate as they were trying to retrieve their luggage.

In the airport where we were all corralled I noticed about a dozen passengers had luggage. I asked them in a non-threatening manner "why did you take your luggage?". Most people didn't really have a reason, they just did it instinctively. Two people said that they were "queuing to evacuate" so used the time to get their luggage. One said it was under the seat so it was a bit of an obstruction so they took it with them.

I would suggest that there is a PA announcement that state "Evacuate - Leave your luggage" that repeats in such circumstances.

As an aside, the fire was a false alarm, and it took nearly two hours to retrieve our hand luggage from the aircraft and that took a lot of persuasion from us as most of us had house keys, car keys etc in our hand luggage and couldn't get home without it. They originally told us we couldn't get them until the next day.

Trossie

9th Sep 2015, 10:02

...which airline is going to be brave enough to incur adverse PR by bringing such cases to court.It shouldn't be the airline. A law has been broken. It should be the police.

Ranger One

9th Sep 2015, 10:04

OK that pic is clearer; let's paste it directly into the thread so we all can see it. I agree; impossible to guess at this stage how much is down to fire and how much is down to impact. But at the extreme right side it's clear the engine cowling is severely disrupted, and blown outwards directly towards the damaged area.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03433/vegas2_3433621b.jpg

Whinging Tinny

9th Sep 2015, 10:06

To people saying you are looking at the forward hold in the pictures, you are not.
You are looking at the composite wing to body fairings, or what is left of them.

Ranger One

9th Sep 2015, 10:18

Well for a wee comparison...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2719363341_8c2c48a0e3.jpg

juniour jetset

9th Sep 2015, 10:31

looking at that photo - likely structural integrity lost in crucial area of airframe/wing fixing zone

I'm no engineer and I'm happy to be schooled by some professionals

but, I'd speculate a write off by Mr Airline boss and the Loss adjuster??

DX Wombat

9th Sep 2015, 10:32

First of all well done everyone involved. :ok:
If tests are successful, suitable pouches could then be sold at airport terminals, and the evacuation rules slightly relaxed to allow passengers to exit with just this small item. I'm curious as to why you think a special pouch would be necessary. I have a small 10 x 15cms(approx.) very slim bag/pouch which I hang around my neck. It's just big enough to hold my passport and credit card and small enough to drop inside my blouse/Tshirt/jumper so that it wouldn't become snagged in an emergency. I bought it in ESheds market in Fremantle but similar things are available in plenty of other locations.

etrang

9th Sep 2015, 10:35

I find it very hard to understand the stupidity of people who think that criminal prosecutions of pax who evacuate with luggage would change people's behavior in a future evacuation.

Many pax don't even watch the safety demonstration, yet you think they are going to read, study and inwardly digest obscure legal decisions in a foreign country which would have happened long before. And that they will stop and remember all of that in the middle of a life threatening crisis. Laughable.

AT1

9th Sep 2015, 10:42

What do we make of the damage on the starboard side visible in the picture in post 14. Is that just smoke/fire damage to the skin of the fuselage at the wing root, or is that possibly mechanical damage? Could the port engine have thrown something that has "made a bit of a mess" on the port side but then gone right though the fuselage just at the forward wing root? Clearly not the front fan, and that must imply it could not have been any complete turbine disc.

Any pictures on the inboard side of the port engine?

readywhenreaching

9th Sep 2015, 10:42

Do we think fixable, or is the aircraft likely to be a write off?
a 16 year aircraft with extensive fire damage in the center part like this one will not get a repair.

btw: 3rd operational hull loss for BA in 7 years (2nd 777), but NONE of them was fatal !

Non-Driver

9th Sep 2015, 10:45

Also on an earlier post someone commented that fan blade failure can/must be contained but disc failure cannot be. Is that an absolute because the engineering cannot contain the energy or is it economics of not having a ring of titanium 'armour' around the more vulnerable higher energy hot components?

Blades need to be contained in the event of a seperation anywhere through the engine including turbine, however if its a wheel failure that's generating energy at TO power that's pretty much impossible to contain (per Sioux City DC-10 and that was at cruise setting). Failure risk mitigation comes down to design, manufacturing and operating stats which are now pretty phenomenal for big turbines. Trend now is to go for blisks to avoid the trad fir tree root connection but now you have one single lump of very high energy. I'm sure the regulators do the maths.

It would appear the failure was uncontained to a certain degree given the cowl and ancilliaries damage but I haven't seen images to determine whether it blew through the wing. The WTB fairing damage is clearly heat rather than penetration, presumably the fuel source was damaged fuel system at the point of exit for whatever exited. The positioning you can see does initially appear to be relatively forward suggesting IP or HP compressor rather than turbine.

log0008

9th Sep 2015, 10:55

btw: 3rd operational hull loss for BA in 7 years (2nd 777), but NONE of them was fatal !

And both the 777 losses were as a result of engine issues in either the final or first stages of flight

slfie

9th Sep 2015, 10:56

Non-Driver:
It would appear the failure was uncontained to a certain degree given the cowl and ancilliaries damage but I haven't seen images to determine whether it blew through the wing.http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/09/ba777fire.jpeg

clipstone1

9th Sep 2015, 10:57

a close to 17 year old well used 777, that is owned outright by the airline (so no lessor to pressure) with substantial heat damage, would not be close to economically repairable.

The engine alone is probably $20m for a suitable second hand example (although arguably the part that failed is not covered by insurance and there would be considerable betterment in a fresh out of check engine) the rest of the damage will mean BA is alas a 777 down in their fleet for some time.

There will however be a good amount of salvage, BA are likely to do a deal on that depending upon which interior this 777 has (update, it has an old interior so probably of little value to anyone), otherwise BA will see their money from insurers in the next week and the loss adjusters will go off and get offers for the remaining salvage.

Tourist

9th Sep 2015, 10:58

And both the 777 losses were as a result of engine issues in either the final or first stages of flight

Not really.

Fuel starvation is not really an engine issue.

Heinz57

9th Sep 2015, 10:58

I don't normally post on here, but I have to say I seriously can't believe how blinkered some of you condoning pax taking their luggage off with them.

For those who say they would have done the same (ie. taking luggage off), or it's ok to try grab your hand luggage, why don't you imagine for a moment being a passenger in a burning aircraft in the area where the fire is, in desperation trying to get off and away from the fire and smoke, but ahead of you, hindering your escape, are selfish individuals (who are nearer exits away from the fire and fumes - and consequently escape is more likely assured) blocking these escape routes standing in the way taking their possessions out of the overhead lockers. I would be curious to know how many of those pax sitting in the area of the fire stopped to take their hand luggage en route to the evacuation slides?

How would you feel if it were one of your loved ones in this situation and did not make it due to not evacuating quickly enough? It only takes the photo posted above to realise how quickly the fire must have escalated and therefore how lucky those pax were sitting in this area that they made it out in one piece with no serious injuries / fatalities.

When evacuation is as a result of fire and / or smoke, forget passports, medication, valuables. It's about simply getting out alive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply deluded and selfish in my opinion.

UKpaxman

9th Sep 2015, 11:14

I'd like to see minimal cabin baggage implemented - you want to see how quickly 90 North Sea bears can be loaded and unloaded from a 146 with no cabin baggage when the only thing between them and the pub is the flight. Yes it's a bit tongue in cheek, but it really does show the difference between regular pax who want minimal inconvenience and normal domestic pax who want all their creature comforts with them while extracting every penny of value for their ticket price.

As for the airports encouraging multiple bags of duty free, that's another rant altogether.

Well done to all involved, good outcome to something that could have gone horribly wrong.

tdracer

9th Sep 2015, 11:19

Tourist, to pick nits, the heat exchanger that was blocked with ice is considered to be part of the engine (i.e. a fuel/engine oil heat exchanger). So yes, it can certainly be considered an "engine problem".
I'll be curious to hear if the wing fuel tank was penetrated, or if the fire was fed purely with "engine fuel". On a 777, shutting down the engine (either with the fuel switch or the fire handle) will close the spar valve. However, the spar valve takes a few seconds to close so if the fuel line is compromised the boost pumps can push a lot of fuel out in those few seconds (plus whatever crew reaction time there was).
In response to a previous post regarding containing disc failures - it simply isn't practical. There is way too much energy involved - even armor plate would be easily penetrated (while doing a rotor burst analysis on the 777, someone asked the question of "where would a 1/3 fan disc go" - the answer was "wherever it wants to":eek:).

Interested Passenger

9th Sep 2015, 11:22

With regard to the passengers carrying luggage off the aircraft, we see this every time there is a crash - when was the last time it has adversely affected the outcome? Of course, it does slow things down, and it does make it more likely, but when has it actually happened?

Passengers around the world will be seeing pictures of yet another 'plane crash' with a successful evacuation, and passengers taking their belongings with them.

Probably far more relevant, is that from the passenger figures published, the plane was only half full.

snowfalcon2

9th Sep 2015, 11:25

Flightradar24 has released their raw data, here (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150908-0).

The data samples suggest that take-off power was applied at around 23:12:43 UTC as the aircraft had turned onto heading 090 (presumably the actual heading of 07L?) with a speed of 20 knots.

Six seconds later it had reached 46 knots and fourteen seconds later at 23:12:57 its maximum speed of 78 knots. From there it decelerated in 9 seconds to 2 knots, its heading essentially unchanged at 086 degrees.

As a guesstimate, the fault happened somewhere at the 46 knots point and it took a few seconds before the crew was ready to cut power and hit the brakes, airplane still accelerating. That would imply alarm-to-full-stop in approx 16-20 seconds. Pretty quick reactions and decision making I'd say?

Bleve

9th Sep 2015, 11:26

Great job by the crew all round - especially the FA at door L2. :D

Some have commented that it's a good job it didn't happen after V1 - and I agree, much better to be dealing with problems stationary on the ground. But not because of the fuselage damage that resulted.

I think that the damage to the fuselage only happened because it was stationary on the ground. They were taking off on 07L and the wind was 360 at 5. The prevailing wind was blowing the fire from the left engine directly against the fuselage. If they were airborne, the fire would be streaming aft, along, through and behind the engine. You wouldn't have the same fuselage damage, if any at all. Of course they would probably have a different set of problems to deal with, particularly if the fire was uncontained.

Una Due Tfc

9th Sep 2015, 11:32

I'm also curious as to whether a fuel tank was ruptured. As has already been stated, when a disk fails it's an absolute lottery as to where it'll go. If ram air on a Concorde departure can't put out a fuel fire, it certainly won't on a tripler

londonman

9th Sep 2015, 11:37

Re luggage carrying idiots.

Hopefully either BA or the authorities can identify them and (a) prosecute them for endangering the lives of fellow passengers and crew and (b) banning them from all airlines. For life.

ttodd

9th Sep 2015, 11:44

Possibly a simple quick, cheap, fix might be to propagate the idea, via in-flight announcements and other avenues [ ?? at check-in] for passengers to keep passports cash and items of crucial importance on their person at all times.

"Sir, Madam, we insist you keep your vital "stuff" on your person at all times during the flight as, in an emergency, access to the overhead lockers is not permitted/prohibited/unavailable etc".....

I wonder if those scrambling for hand-baggage aren't often just grabbing their vital stuff?

Being stuck anywhere in the States without a passport is a nightmare.

Gordomac

9th Sep 2015, 11:57

We are all trained to do this but this team showed us how it's done. Thanks for the demo BA. Stand very proud.

Pete_slf

9th Sep 2015, 11:58

I know I'm only a PAX, but it is always reassuring to see how well the professionals respond in a situation like this. I trust them all with my safety, and these guys & gals did a great job of getting the a/c stopped, getting all the pax off (some with hand luggage:ugh:), and getting the fire out promptly.

A thank you, not just to those involved in this case, but to all the crews who would respond in the same way to ensure the best possible outcome.:D

PersonFromPorlock

9th Sep 2015, 12:01

Something about an uncontained engine failure that may not be apparent if you haven't experienced one: I was aboard a B-52H that put a fan blade through a cowling and the noise was immense, like being inside the world's largest pipe organ. I am pretty sure that in this incident every soul on board knew there was a serious problem as soon as it happened.

gcal

9th Sep 2015, 12:02

@Gordomac

Well said.

Ian W

9th Sep 2015, 12:02

A lot is being written yet again about how stupid passengers are who grab their hand luggage during an emergency evacuation. Well, yes, but only up to a point, in my view.

<<SNIP>>

An excellent post by Dave's Brother.

How many of the ranting anti-cabin baggage group have gone to you tube and the BA safety video? The 'and take nothing with you' is a throw away line in the video given less emphasis than blowing into the tube of a live vest. In another airline it is some words scrolling on a bus destination board and in one I regularly fly on it is never mentioned.

If it is that important that pax do not take their valuable possessions with them then the airlines (that is you Ppruners) are going to have to change.

First. Make it totally plain to everyone that in an emergency evacuation pax must NOT take bags with them. Repeat it. Sack marketing men who hide this advice in jokey 'right on' giggling safety briefings. Safety briefings must be formal and start with LISTEN TO THIS IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE level warnings and pax that talk/read in a safety briefing should be called out as endangering themselves and the other pax.

Second. The Airline needs to take responsibility for looking after pax who lose wallets and documentation and luggage. Almost always airlines take no responsibility for what happens to pax after an evacuation. As reported earlier in the thread to the extent that pax who obeyed the 'no hand baggage' rules were incarcerated for a day and a half before their embassy could produce replacement papers. Not our problem says the airline - but it is as pax know that the airlines (that many of you moaners work for ) will abandon them to the joys of dealing with unsympathetic immigration officers - so they take their bags with those papers with them in evacuations.

Third. Rather like the above the airline must secure the pax belongings left behind. In several incidents pax lost expensive equipment because they left it behind as they were told by the moaners here and the airline failed in its duty of care. If pax suspect their valuables are going to be stolen they will not want to leave them in an evacuation.

Fourth. Airlines should provide cheap small document and cell phone pouches of an international standard size and design to pax and assure them that those WILL be allowed with them during evacuations. Just making pax look at the bags and what they are for will reinforce the no other bags warnings.

The airlines must be proactive before the incidents rather than prosecute after an incident when it is too late.

ChissayLuke

9th Sep 2015, 12:04

Well Done all round.
Everything done as per training.

Listening to the ATC tape, there does appear to be a time-gap between the Speedbird stopping message, and the Mayday fire services requested message.
Did the flight crew not realise that a fire was (or was likely to have) started?
ATC appear to have despatched fire services anyway, but given this delay, and the damage already occuring to the fueselage/cabin, we're looking at few seconds before catastrophe, it seems.

In now way am I critical, but I'm just interested in this gap between announcing stop, and calling for fire service.

gcal

9th Sep 2015, 12:08

The ATC was busy and I think that is the only reason.
By and large the reaction time by everyone concerned was remarkable.

gas path

9th Sep 2015, 12:11

I don't know for certain yet but I think the wing tank remained undamaged. A flight from LAS would have full wings and the rest in the CWT. A punctured tank(s) with blazing fuel pouring out I think the damage would be just a tad more severe!
The damage to the motor appears to be on the left hand side, mounted there is the MFP and the HMU and the main fuel feed tubing. A compressor blade departing company would not penetrate the casing, however an HPT blade departing at the disc might just have enough energy.

Torque Tonight

9th Sep 2015, 12:15

'Interested Passenger', the BA 737 RTO/fire at Manchester in which nearly half the passengers were killed by smoke inhalation demonstrated the importance of evacuation procedures. A great deal of research led to many improvements in design, procedures and legislation. One of my close relatives was involved in the investigation: anyone who thinks that an evacuation is a time-available disembarkation with bags, would do well to read the report and see the photgraphs of the inside of the cabin.

The ultimate message is that a fire and evacuation is a time-critical life and death event. The purpose of the evacuation is to save lives not baggage and any actions that slow down or interfere with the evacuation are unacceptable. While you are dicking around with a bag even if only for seconds, someone further down the cabin could be inhaling toxic smoke. I'm astonished by some of the comments here that seem to condone this behaviour.

Apart from that little rant, a superb job by all the crew and fire services that saved many lives. Well done Speedbird.

J4CKO99

9th Sep 2015, 12:18

There should be no ambiguity about any personal effects in that situation, nothing is vital and can be replaced, passport is a bit of paper, mobile phone, there are millions of them, start telling people to keep them about their person and they will start transferring it when they should be getting off a burning plane, as realistically several hours with your passport, wallet etc in your pocket isn't comfortable.

Get off the plane, that is all there is to it, worst comes to the worst you get to do a Tom hanks in the airport for a few days and have a tale to tell when you get home.

I get so frustrated with other passengers with their massive carry on luggage, just check it ffs and perhaps not get up and faff about with it every fifteen minutes ? the maximum bag size should be half the size is it now, just deal with the baggage reclaim.

this does have echoes of the Manchester disaster, obviously no two incidents are exactly the same but 30 years on this resulted in a ruined plane and a few sprains and bruises by the sound of it, not 55 funerals and life changing injuries, I saw that pall of smoke when doing my paper round that morning in 85, its nice to think that this result is partly down to the lessons learnt from that incident, and some good has come from it 30 years hence, that and the performance of the industry, crew and emergency services, if not all the passengers....

chuks

9th Sep 2015, 12:34

You can't fix "stupid." Choose one:

1. Stuck for 36 hours without important documents, left behind when evacuating a burning aircraft. (I keep mine in a light vest that I wear, and my German wife has one of those weird little pouches hung around her neck for such items, but that might just be us. It's not so much being poised to flee impending doom with the speed of a thousand startled gazelles, just that some tea-leaf might actually steal whatever we have left in that locker, perhaps while we are sleeping or visiting the toilet.)

2. Being on a slab in the morgue, stone dead because you were stuck on a burning aircraft waiting for someone who needed to take his carry-on baggage, which included important documents.

The same sort of people who ignore the safety briefing don't bother to look for the nearest exit (as they are told to during the briefing that they have ignored), and also don't bother to look at the safety card to see which sort of exits their airplane has ... those are the same people who are going to be stood there fishing their bags out of the lockers instead of focusing on getting down the aisle and off the airplane.

I agree that these "cutesy" briefings (looking at you here, Southwest Airlines) perhaps trivialize something that is important, although the notion is that people shall pay more attention to something told to them in such a light-hearted way, even an important safety briefing.

What we need is segregated seating. One section for those of us 100% focused on surviving an emergency, another for those who shall need to get their carry-on bags, perhaps need to use their phone to record the event for posterity, or do whatever seems to be a good idea, whatever goes through their tiny, unfocused minds once they finally realize that, yes, this is an emergency and never mind what that travel agent promised them. As it is, the problem for the first group is that the second group is going to be in their way, unfair as that is.

Basil

9th Sep 2015, 12:47

I think not (as did many passengers apparently) in this case, the plane didn't crash, it caught fire on the runway.
This was a very serious fire. Those who committed the crime of taking hand baggage with them could, had things gone a little worse, have been guilty of manslaughter.

deep_south

9th Sep 2015, 12:53

We need to differentiate between the two types of "cabin baggage". The photos I have seen tend to show the "smaller" stuff that goes at your feet, rather than the "bigger" stuff that goes into the overhead lockers.

I think we all agree that "stopping" to get stuff from an overhead locker is "not a good idea", but if it is at your feet it doesn't even take second to pick it up and take it with you.

And although I have never been in an aeroplane evacation, I can't image "every one gets up and leaves their seats" all at the same time anyway.

Blocking the aisle to rummage around the overhead locker is one thing, taking the small bag interfering with your feet is another.

My wife always flies with her handbag down there, but I can't bear to have my feet "obstructed" so my hand baggage is always in the locker.

Having been involved in four major building fire / evacuations over the years my personal advice there is to take 5 seconds to assess the situation and then move quickly. In a plane, just follow the evacuation directions instantly to the nearest available exit... fewer options available so just takes half a second to assess. which way to go.

Good Business Sense

9th Sep 2015, 12:55

Gladrag

As a new, very young, jumbo skipper many years ago I had an engine failure about 100 kts, I completed the RTO and found for various reasons that I had to evacuate the aircraft (one of the most sobering decisions I've ever had to make) - I saw at first hand the human nature that gets exhibited in these situations ...... "if you get in front of me and my family with your baggage......" trust me !

Rgds

Dave's brother

9th Sep 2015, 12:56

I just cannot understand the stupidity of people posting on here who somehow feel that carrying bags off in a situation like this is in any way condonable.
Trossie (and others), you aren't going to solve the problem until you understand it. I don't understand it either - but I strongly suspect it's a lot more complex than people thinking that their tag-along is more important than getting the hell out of the airplane quickly. That does not mean it's condonable - and I don't think I or anyone else here has said that it is. Just that it's more complicated than you'd like to think.

All this talk of fines and prosecutions and failure to obey crew commands is utter nonsense if you don't understand why and how people behave the way they do in a full-on emergency. This industry needs some research into why people do this.

And see my comment (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/567401-ba-777-fire-las-vegas-4.html#post9110549)re Asiana - where it's been suggested that PAX were instructed to take bags with them because they were obstructing the aisle.

A340Yumyum

9th Sep 2015, 13:04

ChisseyLuke

"Listening to the ATC tape, there does appear to be a time-gap between the Speedbird stopping message, and the Mayday fire services requested message.
Did the flight crew not realise that a fire was (or was likely to have) started?
ATC appear to have despatched fire services anyway, but given this delay, and the damage already occuring to the fueselage/cabin, we're looking at few seconds before catastrophe, it seems.

In now way am I critical, but I'm just interested in this gap between announcing stop, and calling for fire service."

Following an RTO, well-trained flight crew are educated to ensure the park brake is set, the reverser(s) is/are stowed and clear handover of control is given to the captain, if the FO was flying the aircraft (unsure in this instance who's sector it was). We are then advised to take a couple of deep breaths and assess the gravity of the situation before carrying out any drills. The severity is reconsidered and then the captain makes a decision to evacuate or not.
If these vital steps are not covered, you may run the risk of evacuating an aircraft with engines running and it self-taxiing across the airfield. Not very healthy for the evacuees and other airport users.
These actions have to be done with a degree of urgency, but it takes time. I think the timescale here was nothing short of incredibly good.

No you are not critical, just not very clever.

londonman

9th Sep 2015, 13:10

And as we are talking about evacuation and many posters stay in unfamiliar hotels, please :-

- DO check to see where your nearest fire exit is
- DO count the number of doorways between your room and the fire exit (imagine thick dense smoke and having to feel your way)
- Do use the BACK of your hand when feeling blindly for those doorways because many hotels run mains electric cables at floor level which might be exposed. The last thing you want to do is touch one with your palm because you won't be able to let go.

glad rag

9th Sep 2015, 13:11

CRayner

9th Sep 2015, 13:13

Demonstrates two things. Possession of a remarkably waterproof phone, and a touching faith in submarine network coverage.😜

oleostrut

9th Sep 2015, 13:24

Banning all carry-on is the only way to stop folks taking their bags in an emergency evac.

In a crisis, some people shut down and do nothing, others carry on as if everything is normal, and the rest treat it like the life threatening situation that it is. For many, standing and retrieving their bag is the only way they have ever exited an aircraft.

Even FAs are known to deactivate the slides when they open the doors in an emergency, because that is how they always open the door except in the training hull.

That everyone got out alive is testament to the excellent training and professionalism of the crew. Great job dealing with a very bad situation.

CaptainX

9th Sep 2015, 13:34

To all the hand luggage apologists, I beg you to listen to the professionals who have posted on this site. However smart, fit and agile you think you are, if you start picking up your stuff and opening overhead lockers, others will copy you.

Do not take any hand luggage with you. No exceptions.

oscarisapc

9th Sep 2015, 13:39

Stopping passengers taking their bags is a matter of raising awareness beforehand, so that the majority of passengers know about it, and will not be surprised when asked to do so in a moment of extreme stress. If old Granny Stumbleshoes wants to take her knitting from the overhead locker or Mr Smartarse Executive feels his computer is more important than a person at the back of the queue, then neither of them are going to give in quietly when the cabin staff tell them to leave their stuff and get out and under those circumstances it makes sense not to argue since it will waste time. But if all passengers were made aware right from the outset that they might be required to leave everything, and the reason why, then we might at last start to make an impact on the problem. As has been said many times, you can’t predict what people will do in panic, but the more familiar and consistent the message, the more likely it will be heeded. At the moment there isn’t any message.

Eclectic

9th Sep 2015, 13:43

Gove N.T.

9th Sep 2015, 13:45

One of The reasons why so much carry on is carried is because, in this hurry up world, the delivery of hold baggage to the reclaim is inordinately long. The carrier I worked for had targets of 1st bag on the belt within 15mins of blocks, last, 40 mins. The target for compliance was 90% and we were close to meeting this most of the time.
Other reasons include mishandled baggage and the fear of your bag not arriving. With the advent of reconciliations systems, the mishandling of point to point baggage is remarkably low - our carrier averaged around 1.5 bags per 1000 pax. BUT...transfer baggage is a different matter - usually becuase, wrongly, many transferring carriers put low priority to these bags since the problem of pax confrontation is at a different airport!
So... With this in mind .... Many carriers encouraged (marketed) the acceptance of carry-on baggage sometimes advertising that their allowance was 2 bags providing you could lift them into the overhead lockers without assistance.
The suggestions of locking overheads would certainly reduce the thoughtless idiot blocking the aisle for other escaping passengers but on a risk/cost analysis would probably reject the upgrade required. I liked the suggestion that those who had carry on with them on the ground after the evacuation should be prosecuted but that would be unlikely to happen which is a shame.
It is never to be forgotten that cabin crew are not just glorified waiters/ waitresses. The actions of these and the cockpit crew appear to have been exemplary

EGPI10BR

9th Sep 2015, 13:57

@ Eclectic
I have them all scanned and stored in Dropbox (other cloud services are available) for that purpose. I can access all of the documentation from any smartphone or an internet terminal at the airport/hospital/police station.

Misty.

lomapaseo

9th Sep 2015, 13:57

There is little to be gained by wringing one's hands and blaming the passengers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having to think logically.

The issue is to find out what happened and contributing factors so as to continue to have a safe outcome in spite of the passengers individual actions.

I keep reading the many pages in this thread just to find out from those on-scene what happened to the plane.

Suzeman

9th Sep 2015, 14:01

Some after incident passenger reaction here including reports of what passengers had left behind and what appears to be some lack of communication from BA in the immediate aftermath. Easy to criticise in a fast moving situation as we don't know what else was going on.

Passengers stranded after plane fire - Story | Southern Nevada - Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City | LasVegasNow | KLAS-TV (http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/passengers-stranded-after-plane-fire)

Anyway, you can see from the picture in post 123 that the aircraft is partially off the paved surface and from the FR24 data released, it seems to have stopped at approx 40 degree to the centreline. That's no criticism of the crew by the way; they did a magnificent job of stopping and getting everyone out.

What this does show is the importance of having the appropriate cleared and graded area at the runway edges. Some big international airports I've been to have uncovered pits, trenches and god knows what in this area - all traps for both off piste aircraft or evacuating passengers.

In this case in the desert, these surfaces are strong enough to support the aircraft weight, but notice how the pax out of Door 4L are able to get well away without having to negotiate any obstructions. Passengers from the right hand side were evacuating onto the runway. And well done to the cabin crew who can be seen marshalling evacuated passengers away from the scene to safer locations.

Top job to the whole crew for doing their job in a most professional way - when it mattered. :ok:

Trossie

9th Sep 2015, 14:02

...I'm just interested in this gap between announcing stop, and calling for fire service.Don't you think that they had their hands full actually stopping. Once they'd stopped they could have called for fire services. 15 seconds or so is not long. Think how long it'll take you to a full stop on a motorway.

Roadster280

9th Sep 2015, 14:06

And your point is ? Same as plenty of other hot places, but you won't be carrying luggage down the slide will you.

Really at a loss as to why you posted other that to "flame" Ho :mad: Ho.

No "flaming" intended. I was simply pointing out that that jacket is impractical in Nevada.

In any case, it's not a binary choice between that jacket or carrying a bag. People can make their own minds up as to what to carry in terms of passport/wallet/nothing and how to carry it. Obviously some of them get it wrong, but most don't.

Gridl0k

9th Sep 2015, 14:07

One handy tip for travelling.
Before departure scan all documents; passport, driving license, travel tickets, traveler's cheques, credit cards etc and email them to your own Gmail account.
You can then retrieve them nearly instantly anywhere in the world on any computer or smartphone.

If you have 2-factor-authentication, this is not true. If you don't have 2FA don't email your whole identity to yourself ;)

As some idea of the size of bags removed from a plane on fire with smoke in the cabin (and not to judge, to inform);

http://imgur.com/qLTrKH3.jpg

PiggyBack

9th Sep 2015, 14:12

There are many comments treating the decision by some passengers to take baggage during evacuation as if this is a considered decision by the passengers, if this was the case it would be not just stupid but reckless.

The reality however is that passengers will be surprised and shocked. I would expect many of them to be confused and in confusion fall back onto habitual patterns of behaviour however inappropriate.

There shoudl be research into how best to alleviate this problem. Prosecution should only be considered if the research shows it would make a significant difference. Personally I think improved briefing/communications would work better but the point is to research it. If prosecutions are made then the chances are that those prosecuted are simply confused and disorientated rather than deliberately cuplable. I could accept this if it can be show that prosecuting what are effectively victims will reduce further deaths but only if that can be shown. I think the morality of prosecution is dubious even in that case.

wiggy

9th Sep 2015, 14:13

What this does show is the importance of having the appropriate cleared and graded area at the runway edges. Some big international airports I've been to have uncovered pits, trenches and god knows what in this area - all traps for both off piste aircraft or evacuating passengers.

:ok: Whether to "skew" or not as you stop for an engine fire with an X-wind is becoming more of a briefing item for us, especially on the more long bodied -300, and most especially at airports with less benign runway shoulders....At some places putting in a minor turn as you stop is going to put those going down slides at 5L or 5R into a storm drain, or worse...personally I'd be grateful to just get stopped and doubt I'd have the capacity to do much else..:\.

As for the comments about 15 seconds between "stopping" and the "mayday"...:ugh:very much :ugh:

Mickj3

9th Sep 2015, 14:24

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but I was surprised to see the escape chutes on the port side (side of the engine fire) being deployed. Passengers escaping into a danger area (engine fire, fire service vehicles manoeuvring etc).

skridlov

9th Sep 2015, 14:31

I don't think anyone is actually arguing that carrying luggage during an emergency evacuation is anything but wrong. However I think the psychology bears some examination.

There's almost certainly a distinction in many passengers' minds which may arise in these situations. If the threat is plainly visible and imminent - say a fire inside the cabin - I doubt if many people would prioritise their spare undies over an immediate swift exit, unencumbered. However if the evacuation is being initiated in response to factors known only to the flight crew and not obvious, I suspect many passengers would think "may as well..." It's a fact of human psychology that we are inclined to think that bad outcomes - like death - always happen to someone else.

Personally I've always carried the absolute essentials on my person rather than in cabin baggage and can't imagine why anyone would do otherwise. As for the issue of excessive cabin baggage it infuriates me as much as it does professionals in the industry. However having had hold baggage lost five times (on one occasion permanently) it's hard to resist the temptation to carry on sufficient semi-essentials to cover the possibility.

Given the gravity of a situation requiring emergency evacuation, I'm surprised that it's not accompanied by PA instructions (language limitations accepted) forcefully ordering appropriate procedures - like NO baggage. It'd have to help, I'd have thought.

barit1

9th Sep 2015, 14:39

A signature of a disc burst is the creation of several projectiles - usually three - flying in diverging paths in the plane of rotation; the obvious corollary is three holes in the case and cowl.

I see no holes in the outboard side of the cowl.

So - I'm beginning to suspect a pressure vessel burst. The big fans run at very high pressure ratio, and design criteria take the pressures and temperatures and cyclic fatigue into account. Then we have the odd phenomenon of a berserk burner weakening the pressure vessel through local overheating, leading to a blowout (e.g. Kegworth)

Just surveying the available evidence...

Tourist

9th Sep 2015, 14:50

Does anybody sane on here actually believe that a prosecution against a passenger reacting to an emergency by taking their bag could possibly be made to stick?

Apart from anything else, there would obviously have to be exceptions.

There would be people who needed inhalers or particular drugs for a start.
There would be evacuations in Northern Norway in -35C where a coat would be a good idea.

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Sep 2015, 14:50

To those criticising humorous / informal flight safety demonstrations:

There is a major problem with strictly formal flight safety demos. Whilst they tick the legal boxes, the sad reality is that many pax simply don't engage with them. Especially at unsociable hours. They are perceived as dry, boring and - literally - a turn-off. Seen 'em before. They simply do not grab attention.

The ultimate objective of a safety demo must be to convey crucial life-saving information to passengers; ticking the legal requirement boxes alone is not sufficient. To this end, there is clear evidence that less formal / humorous flight safety demos DO SUCCEED in drawing and retaining the attention of passengers. The Southwest briefings cited in an earlier post draw laughs but do successfully get the message across. A droning robotic delivery keeps one's attention like the small-print on an insurance policy.

As a piece of anec***al evidence, I contrast the attention paid to the (formal) flight safety demo by passengers aboard a recent flight by a familiar scheduled leisure airline - more than half the pax appeared to take no notice whatsoever - and that noted aboard the return flight. The return flight was operated by CONDOR FLUGDIENST, a German charter airline forming part of the Thomas Cook Group. Their safety video is available for viewing on Youtube in both German and English language versions. Take a look. It is an outstanding piece of engaging film-making with a serious intent. Whilst it is humorous and very entertaining, it achieved almost 100% engagement with the pax on the flight I used. And that is the whole point. It got the message across. Those calling for (dry) formal demos / videos only have it absolutely wrong. Too many pax will totally ignore them.

I'm flying a similar trip next week - out from MAN with a regular leisure carrier, back to MAN with CFG. I will take careful note of the passenger attention to the respective safety videos. I fully expect that the humorous one will again emerge the clear winner.

EDIT: Question: Any idea why site software has censored the word A - N - E - C - D - O - T - A - L ? What am I missing here?

Wirbelsturm

9th Sep 2015, 14:56

why did they not ask for fire services in that first call?

You're a long way forward of the engines in the 777 and they aren't visible from the cockpit. The fire loops give indication of a fire within the engine housing. This warning can also be a 'hot gas leak' coming from either a blown seal or a crack in the casing.

The fire warning will cause the 'Stop' call to be made then there is a pause for all three pilots to confirm the indications and identify the potential cause. Once the cause has been established then the appropriate call can be made.

The delay is to ascertain exactly the severity of the situation as putting your passengers out of the aircraft, down the slides onto an active, busy airfield isn't a decision that any Captain would take lightly. Once the initial 'alert' call has been made and the fire verified then the second call would be made.

Simple answer never rush!

tlbrown350

9th Sep 2015, 14:57

Human nature of a imminent threat has a lot to do with passengers taking their baggage or not. I'm sure some didn't know how serious the situation was at the time . A simple leave all carry on bags after the evacuation order would help as well as convey the serious situation. The industry as a whole has to do more to stress the importance of leaving baggage behind during a evacuation order .

2Planks

9th Sep 2015, 14:57

Just reviewing the comments and available evidence it would appear that:
Those who were trained professionals in this incident (on the flight deck, in the cabin, in ATC and the rescue guys) all acted in a highly professional manner and all contributed to stopped this incident becoming a tragedy.

Some of those who were not trained (ie the pax) acted irrationally because of selfishness or lack of awareness. My conclusion - the bags issue is an industry problem and training/education is the only answer.

LASJayhawk

9th Sep 2015, 14:58

Mickj3 Not sure if this has already been mentioned but I was surprised to see the escape chutes on the port side (side of the engine fire) being deployed. Passengers escaping into a danger area (engine fire, fire service vehicles manoeuvring etc).

The wind had started to pick up a bit out of the NNW. Upwind on the fire side seems like as good a choice as downwind and the smoke side. Unloading twice as fast from an aircraft on fire may have entered the decision as well.

D Bru

9th Sep 2015, 14:59

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."

LASJayhawk

9th Sep 2015, 15:07

There is a picture of the starboard side of the aircraft in this story.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-ba-777-likely-suffered-uncontained-engine-416536/

A lot of soot just aft of the R2 door.

susier

9th Sep 2015, 15:13

"Some of those who were not trained (ie the pax) acted irrationally because of selfishness or lack of awareness. My conclusion - the bags issue is an industry problem and training/education is the only answer."

I would think that given the difficulty inherent in trying to educate those either potentially, or actually, in an emergency situation to act responsibly and according to regulation, the only answer to this dilemma is to seriously restrict the amount of baggage that can be taken into the cabin to begin with.

This would be enforceable on the ground prior to departure; it may cause some issues and arguments but they will be contained away from the A/C.

It would be reasonable to allow folks access to their medication, and devices en route - phones, laptops and so on - and indeed pragmatic in terms of items with batteries which are liable to catch fire from time to time, and better in the cabin than in the hold - but the size of bags could be limited to a laptop carrier or small backpack, which could be stored under the seat and carried easily on ones person.

Overhead lockers would be slightly defunct if no one was allowed to use them for baggage, but in a situation like this, it would cut out one of the potential threats to fast evacuation.

Simply put: if the baggage isn't there, people won't be trying to access it, or indeed have to waste time trying to prevent others from accessing theirs.

londonman

9th Sep 2015, 15:16

@ tourist. I disagree. Endangering life is exactly that. I would dearly love the Federal Authorities to go and arrest those who are sitting there in their hotel room with their carry-on luggage in their possession. In fact, the airport authorities could have easily separated those with their luggage as they arrived at the terminal building.

All this talk of minor inconveniences because people have not got their passport vs a few fellow passengers being burned alive is frankly very depressing and indicates a lack of humanity by those suggesting otherwise.

Leave luggage behind. Period.

Sailvi767

9th Sep 2015, 15:20

I am surprised at the number of posts that feel the crew reaction was slow. I suspect most if not all those posts are not from professional pilots. There is a lot to do in the cockpit in this type of situation. Their overall response time was as quick as I can possibly imagine. At first glance everything about this incident appears to be textbook perfect. The last thing in the world you want to do is rush. It's been shown over and over that knee jerk reactions lead to very bad situations. The timing, communications, exits used and outcome were all perfect.

Axel-Flo

9th Sep 2015, 15:26

BA were reporting that the aircraft was taxiing at 90 Kts? Obviously a take off roll abort at 90 Kts fits the description better.
Well done the Gatwick crew who ensured the safety of the passengers and acted so professionally.:D Hope their company appreciate it since their bit is what is seen more by the passengers than anything else. Shame they seem to be in line for pay and condition cuts and have new contract forced on them....

And the decision to throw passengers and crew down slides will always result in some injuries, that there were so few can only be seen as a good thing.

BZ all round.....:ok:

Whip

9th Sep 2015, 15:30

Listening to the ATC tape, there does appear to be a time-gap between the Speedbird stopping message, and the Mayday fire services requested message.
Did the flight crew not realise that a fire was (or was likely to have) started?
ATC appear to have despatched fire services anyway, but given this delay, and the damage already occuring to the fueselage/cabin, we're looking at few seconds before catastrophe, it seems.

In no way am I critical, but I'm just interested in this gap between announcing stop, and calling for fire service.

Hopefully the following might explain the gap, which I thought appears to infer a controlled and prompt actions from the flight deck.

BA SOP's :- After STOP called and being achieved, PNH might well advise TWR of intentions.
Capt continues (else resumes) as PH and when safely stopped (if circumstances & brain functions allow : stop close to a taxiway for easy access of emergency vehicles; if RWY width & surroundings appropriate, nose into side of fault if headwind; away if tailwind).
Capt calls "Identify the Failure".
FO presumably called "Engine Fire Left"; fault confirmed between both.
Capt calls for "Fire Engine Left Memory Items".
FO identifies the appropriate switch, monitored and confirmed by Capt before actioning each switch.
Autothrottle Arm Switch ... Off
Thrust Lever Left ... Closed
Fuel Control Switch Left ... Cutoff
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Pull
If Fire Eng message remains -
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Rotate to stop & hold 1 sec
If Fire Eng message still displayed after 30 secs -
Engine Fire Switch Left Rotate to other bottle
Remember, neither pilot can see anything more than part of the wing tip on his side even when pressing ones cheek against the cockpit window.
Capt must rely on significant information from ATC and/or cabin crew.
BA Cabin Crew are authorized under certain 'catastrophic' circumstances to contact the flight crew directly rather than going through the Cabin Service Director/Purser.

(Health Warning : author of above was a 35 year career with BA ending up as Capt 777 for his last 9 years before retiring over 5 years ago)

mercurydancer

9th Sep 2015, 15:42

I like BA as it still does show considerable professionalism from its staff. I usually fly BA and will continue to do so. The Las Vegas incident reinforces my choice to take BA.

I study major incidents as my role is to risk manage/ensure safety in hospitals. This incident gave me the shivers as it was so similar to the Manchester air disaster. I am amazed that there were only very minor injuries. The crew did exceptionally well that no one died. All credit too to the emergency services on the ground. No one will think of this incident in a month or two. That is a good thing.

tlbrown350

9th Sep 2015, 16:09

Hopefully the following might explain the gap, which I thought appears to infer a controlled and prompt actions from the flight deck.

BA SOP's :- After STOP called and being achieved, PNH might well advise TWR of intentions.
Capt continues (else resumes) as PH and when safely stopped (if circumstances & brain functions allow : stop close to a taxiway for easy access of emergency vehicles; if RWY width & surroundings appropriate, nose into side of fault if headwind; away if tailwind).
Capt calls "Identify the Failure".
FO presumably called "Engine Fire Left"; fault confirmed between both.
Capt calls for "Fire Engine Left Memory Items".
FO identifies the appropriate switch, monitored and confirmed by Capt before actioning each switch.
Quote:
Autothrottle Arm Switch ... Off
Thrust Lever Left ... Closed
Fuel Control Switch Left ... Cutoff
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Pull
If Fire Eng message remains -
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Rotate to stop & hold 1 sec
If Fire Eng message still displayed after 30 secs -
Engine Fire Switch Left Rotate to other bottle
Remember, neither pilot can see anything more than part of the wing tip on his side even when pressing ones cheek against the cockpit window.
Capt must rely on significant information from ATC and/or cabin crew.
BA Cabin Crew are authorized under certain 'catastrophic' circumstances to contact the flight crew directly rather than going through the Cabin Service Director/Purser.

(Health Warning : author of above was a 35 year career with BA ending up as Capt 777 for his last 9 years before retiring over 5 years ago)

Great job by the BA flight crew. Some people who are not pilots forget there are critical checklists to perform even in a time sensitive situation. The BA crew worked together and the result was no fatalities. I think flight crews have learned a lot since Manchester and it showed.

cats_five

9th Sep 2015, 16:13

I visited the US a few years back - Edinburgh - New York - Pittsburgh - Dallas (I think) - Las Vegas - New York - Edinburgh.

I was astonished how much carry on luggage people had, until I was told by my friends in Pittsburgh that bags were very frequently lost or had stuff stolen from them. I started taking my valuables in the cabin, had to buy an extra bag for them.

Tourist

9th Sep 2015, 16:29

If the concern is that people who took their hand baggage slowed others behind them, perhaps we should ban all things that delay quick evacuation.

Fat people.
Old people.
High heels.
Unsuitable clothing.
Children.
Disabled people.
Pregnant people.

All these delay evacuation....

Some of them are even personal choice....

wiggy

9th Sep 2015, 16:34

Can't believe the crew grabbed their hats!

I believe ;) it might be a recommendation (crowd control, co-ordination, help safety service folks to recognise who is crew...etc..)

Shed-on-a-Pole

9th Sep 2015, 16:42

Just another thought for those criticising pax who take large amounts of luggage into the cabin. Many airlines now charge an additional fee - often substantial - for checking luggage into the hold. This system is rapidly educating customers to take as much as possible into the cabin with them free of charge. We increasingly see this as standard behaviour on all flights, regardless of the baggage policies offered by individual carriers.

If the industry is enthusiastically encouraging pax to keep luggage with them - reinforced by financial penalty for checking-in hold luggage - we cannot then complain when they take their full permitted quota into the cabin with them.

The industry must take the lead on this. It is a problem induced by the policies of airlines themselves, not customers. We can't blame a regular family for avoiding the expense of discretionary hold baggage charges. They WILL bring maximum cabin baggage instead if they can. It is just common sense.

max nightstop

9th Sep 2015, 16:50

The decision to open a door is left to the cabin crew member at that door. They look out, assess for danger and then decide. The crew member at L2 made a very good decision. To L1 and L4 it presumably looked clear, because it was.

Wallets, phones, passports are easily replaced. Hats on the other hand, are like rocking horse cr@p. Grap that, but throw your license on the fire, that should give you a nice long break.

wiggy

9th Sep 2015, 16:52

Mickj3

I merely expressed my surprise that deploying the port escape chutes was delivering the escaping passengers into what could be (in this scenario) a danger area. I am well aware that the pilot cannot see the engine from the cockpit and was perhaps unaware of the extent/seriousness of the fire.

The captain will have ordered the evacuation (Evac alarm and/or by PA, preferably both) and also possibly highlighted in the PA that there was a hazard on the left of the aircraft (in this case). As others have pointed out it is then down to the individual crew member at each door to assess for hazards outside their own exit before deciding whether to open their door or keep it closed and redirect passengers to an available exit. That looks like what happen here since 2L and possibly others don't appear to have been used. Given the location of the fire and the hull length of a 777 I can see no reason at all why the attendants shouldn't have used the forward and aft doors on the left (1 Left and 4 Left in this case).

Hope that helps and reduces the element of surprise.

The Old Fat One

9th Sep 2015, 16:56

The industry must take the lead on this. It is a problem induced by the policies of airlines themselves, not customers. We can't blame a regular family for avoiding the expense of discretionary hold baggage charges. They WILL bring maximum cabin baggage instead if they can. It is just common sense.

Nice to see an intelligent post. The industry should have stamped on this marketing ploy (creating headline prices based on over more creative upselling policies) as soon as it appeared. It is human nature to reduce cost if it is possible - even wealthy people do this by deeply ingrained habit. It is also human nature to protect ones important belongings and finally it is human nature to act irrationally under extreme stress.

If the industry wants an increased safety margin where baggage is concerned the answer is 100% in its own hands.

Set a common standard for carry on baggage and enforce industry wide. The rest goes in the hold. Airlines can price it however they want, but not alter the standards. I'm sure there will be someone along to say it's not possible...but frankly it really is that simple.

Skywards747

9th Sep 2015, 17:02

Congratulations to all the professionals involved for a job very well done.

B777 continues to show how well it is designed by nearly all the occupants walking out of accidents that looked very bad. BA38@LHR, Asiana@SFO and now this.

On the subject of keeping vital items with you, I wear a travel vest whenever I travel now.
Not sure whether I am allowed to post commercial links here but here goes:
SCOTTeVEST | Travel Clothing for Men & Women (http://www.scottevest.com/v3_store/QUEST_Vest_Men.shtm)

Even after a year of using it, I am still discovering additional pockets. I carry my PP/travel documents, book, money, phone, full size tablet, cables for charging, headphones, water bottle and snacks in it. Gets heavy sometimes but saves me from carrying those in a separate bag.

sprite1

9th Sep 2015, 17:03

@A340Yumyum:-

In fairness to Mickj3, the aircraft is certified to deplane a full load of pax & crew through half the number of doors installed within 90 secs.

This plane was half full. There were periods on the video where the air around 1L and 4L was completely clear so that's probably why the cabin crew at those doors opened them.

With the benefit of hindsight, there wasn't so much of a need.

Well done to the crew.

Cool banana

9th Sep 2015, 17:05

A feature unique to the 777-300ER and 777-300 flight deck is the Ground Maneuver Camera System (GMCS), designed to assist the pilot in ground maneuvering of the 777-300 with camera views of the nose gear and main gear areas. The cameras are on the leading edge of the left and right horizontal stabilizers and the underside of the fuselage and are used during ground maneuvering. The images are displayed at the Multi-Functional Display positions in the flight deck in a three-way split format.

What a shame it not fitted to the 777-200, it would have given the crew a better situation awareness.

Wycombe

9th Sep 2015, 17:08

Too many pax will totally ignore them

Whilst paxing on a Flybe Q400 a couple of weeks ago, I was heartened to see a couple of chaps (suited, middle-aged), who were carrying on their conversation during the (recorded) safety briefing, being asked firmly but politely to stop talking and pay attention by the CC. Great to see.

What wasn't so great was that as soon as she turned and walked back down the aisle, they carried on :mad: I was half-minded to tell them to shut up myself.

Great job today by all the professionals involved. People taking their bags with them...waste of oxygen.

Aluminium shuffler

9th Sep 2015, 17:08

RatherBeFlying

9th Sep 2015, 17:09

My friend James, who was sitting behind me, says he had a moment of calm once we were still.

There was confusion. Some people to our left stood up and ran to the front, while a flight attendant told everyone to be calm and stay seated. Most people listened. Not everyone did. We stayed where we were. We on the right side of the plane had no way of knowing that the left engine was on fire.

I remember sitting still and assuming everything would be OK and we would have another go at taking off once we were given the all clear. The message from a nearby flight attendant was still to stay calm. One of her colleagues was reassuring people, saying everything was fine. The lines of communication probably could have been better.

We looked out the window and for the first time saw smoke near the wing. We could smell it. It was like burning rubber – bitter and deeply unpleasant – and it was time to panic.

British Airways fire: 'We saw the smoke. The smell was bitter. It was time to panic' | US news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/09/british-airways-fire-we-saw-the-smoke-the-smell-was-bitter-it-was-time-to-panic)

I have heard before that most people just sit there for several precious seconds before the group panic takes over.

wiggy

9th Sep 2015, 17:17

RBF

The message from a nearby flight attendant was still to stay calm. One of her colleagues was reassuring people, saying everything was fine. The lines of communication probably could have been better.

Not sure in what way at that stage of the game (stopped, before the evac) the communications could have been better...I wonder what the writer of the piece suggests?

EMB-145LR

9th Sep 2015, 17:24

Anyway, you can see from the picture in post 123 that the aircraft is partially off the paved surface and from the FR24 data released, it seems to have stopped at approx 40 degree to the centreline. That's no criticism of the crew by the way; they did a magnificent job of stopping and getting everyone out.

Standard procedure at BA is to turn the aircraft downwind so the flames are blown away from the aircraft if at all possible.

McGinty

9th Sep 2015, 17:24

No one seems to have yet noted that the starboard engine was not shut down at the time the evacuation began. The engine exhaust can be seen to be blowing smoke behind the plane in those videos that are taken from the port side.

In one video that is taken from the starboard side of the plane (which can be seen on the Daily Mail's website - sorry about that) the R4 escape slide can be seen to be deployed after 30 seconds or so, but can be seen to flail around in the exhaust coming from the starboard engine.

Also, the R3 escape slide can be seen to twisted towards the tail of the plane in this photo, most probably by engine exhaust but possibly also by water pressure from fire hoses. No one can be seen to escape from R4 or R3 in the Daily Mail video, which is unusual given that the cabin crew would normally direct passengers to an escape on a slide on the opposite side of an active fire.

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=63710

Aluminium shuffler

9th Sep 2015, 17:30

It might have been shut down, but these are huge engines and have a lot of inertia, so take a while to stop turning and producing residual thrust.

fergusd

9th Sep 2015, 17:32

Given the amount of cabin baggage likely on the floor and under seats (because all the overhead lockers are full of piano sized suitcases) it may expedite getting out of your seat to take the junk on the floor with you.

I am a regular passenger on BA, and BA (specifically) need to start applying their own carry on baggage rules to those that fly BA . . .

But it's time to give the 'all PAX are idiots' broken record a rest, 'all flight crew are incompetents and/or mass murderers' is just as imbecilic . . . despite the fact that your kirk has intentionally murdered multiple plane loads of people and killed many more by being unable to do your job and fly the plane properly or opening the doors into a smoke and flame filled environment . . . while PAX offloading baggage in ground evacuations has NOT killed even a small percentage of that number of people . . . perhaps think about that before blaming everybody else . . . as usual . . .

Mr Angry from Purley

9th Sep 2015, 17:33

Well done to the crew makes me proud to be British and Mrs Angry is ex BA Cabin Crew.
Punters have been very complimentary about the Cabin crew and how they moved them away from an exit that was unusable.
By the sounds of it the Commanders last flight as retirement was imminent.
:D I salute you

Aerostar6

9th Sep 2015, 17:38

Fair comment McGinty. However, as a previous poster mentioned, BA FAs are empowered to begin an evacuation if the situation is catastrophic (and ac stationary), so it is possible they the FA at 3R took it upon themselves to initiate the evacuation as the crew were going through the short situational analysis on the flight deck.

On the ATC tape you can clearly hear the evacuation alarm in the background when the crew tell ATC that they are evacuating. This is the final item of the evacuation checklist, so the Fuel Cutoff Switches and Fire Switches are already off, and the engines would start winding down.

It is just a matter of the exact timing of when those two things occurred and whether there was an overlap. All will be revealed by the NTSB in due course. We all indulge in a little monday morning quarter-backing at times like this. The main thing is that the end result was excellent, and we all look forward to learning something from it.

aox

9th Sep 2015, 17:47

aox, that concern about suits from inconvenienced pax is ridiculous. Any person carrying baggage on an evac should be prosescuted at the very least for endangering the other pax and crew and for refusing cabin crew safety orders.

Let's be clear. I'm not proposing something, but pointing out potential difficulties and drawbacks in prosecuting all.

If there has been any aggression and abuse from people refusing to comply when requested, then of course the airline has discretion to ban and/or prosecute, but if all went smoothly without any counter-instruction from staff then trying to prosecute all might be over the top.

That doesn't mean I'm condoning them.

alainthailande

9th Sep 2015, 17:51

Fifth hull loss on an otherwise very safe and reliable aircraft. 2x MAS, 1x Egypt Air and previous BA.
Er... overlooking OZ214 in SFO aren't we? or are you speaking of this particular subtype only?

wheelsright

9th Sep 2015, 18:01

Criticism of the flight crew and cabin staff is probably premature. In such circumstances it may not be certain, at the time that evacuation is ordered, either the location or severity of a fire. This is particularly true when the aircraft is engulfed in smoke. The timeline of the decisions needs to be considered, but it all seems to have been appropriate and effective under the circumstances.

From reports, it seems that the cabin staff properly evaluated the situation once the escape doors were open (if not before) and directed the passengers accordingly. This was not a drill. No doubt there may have been areas that could have been handled better and that will be investigated.

The priority was to remove the passengers expeditiously. The situation could have become very ugly, very quickly. Fortunately, the timely and effective response of the fire services averted a catastrophe, together with the prompt effective action of all others involved.

flyguyfl

9th Sep 2015, 18:08

Hopefully I haven't overlooked a post regarding this but if so, here it is again. The manufacturer's requirements for blade (or IBR) containment. Being an old fart, I seem to recall in the distant past (20 years or so) that engines from that era had a half blade requirement.

Federal Aviation Regulation Sec. 33.94 - Blade containment and rotor unbalance tests. (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part33-94-FAR.shtml)

Bunk-Rest

9th Sep 2015, 18:18

I thought that a MayDay call imposed radio silence on everyone else.
Maybe I'm old fashioned........

mseyfang

9th Sep 2015, 18:25

aox, that concern about suits from inconvenienced pax is ridiculous. Any person carrying baggage on an evac should be prosescuted at the very least for endangering the other pax and crew and for refusing cabin crew safety orders. Both charges, if I'm not mistaken, can carry a two year sentence. There may be other charges that could also be brought. So, let's start criminalising these pieces of human filth that deliberately endanger everyone else, and do it publicly and loudly so that everyone else learns to leave their stuff behind. Massive fines (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars each) or a minimum of three years custodial sentence might start people thinking. Any evacuee with a bag in an accident where any other occupant fails to evacuate in time should be charged with murder.

I think there is a pretty broad consensus that passengers evacuating with hand luggage is a safety issue. I certainly share that view. Still though...

You cannot legislate against the "fight or flight" physiological and psychological response which causes irrational reactions in some people, particularly those who are not trained in procedures for handling an emergency. You can prosecute people, but a decent defense attorney should have no problem in presenting the defendant as a persecuted victim who acted out of panic rather than malice in a life-threatening situation. I suspect the rate of convictions would be rather low. In this case, where the evacuation was a success, the rate of convictions would be exactly zero.

For trained crew, they know that an evacuation is not ordered lightly and that it is done only when the failure to do so presents a serious threat to lives on board. People in the industry know the dangers of rapid fire propagation in cabins and the rapidity with which a seemingly benign situation can become lethal. I doubt that your average passenger has the slightest awareness of any of this, and that is in part a function of the industry itself downplaying the risks of air travel and diluting what should be clear safety briefings with an attempt to be entertaining rather than stating clearly that an ordered evacuation is an emergency in which a few seconds may be the difference between life and death. And that level of clarity may have the unintended consequence of creating panic.

If you want to remove the problem of large bags being hauled off in evacuations, prevent it in the first place by investing in quicker baggage delivery systems and by removing the financial penalty for checking large bags. Of course, expect resistance from the bean counters at airlines who have become addicted to the income stream from baggage fees.

PositiveClimbGearUp

9th Sep 2015, 18:38

"I thought that a MayDay call imposed radio silence on everyone else.
Maybe I'm old fashioned......."

I believe we are hearing two frequencies at once on that recording - so other then acknowledgments to go around or change frequency, there were no calls from other aircraft after the Mayday was declared.

Backseat Dane

9th Sep 2015, 18:53

All this talk about prosecuting passengers who in the panic of evacuating a damaged plane grab their carry-ons is ... rubbish.

Does anybody here really, honestly, believe that it'll do anything good? (Besides the legalese - at least in Denmark you'll have to establish some sort of intent to do harm or at the very least gross negligence on behalf of the passenger in order to take the case to court - and in all honesty: How is that going to be done under the given circumstances?)

I'm not a pilot but I have been deployed as a soldier and as a soldier you train, you train, you train. Someone said it upthread: Train hard, fight easy. Or train as you fight, fight as you train.

But PAX don't train for an evacuation. Best they'll listen to the safety instructions, read the safety folder, find the nearest exit and try to remember. But they haven't done the drill in a dark cabin, half filled with smoke, flames engulfing the fuselage and people screaming and panicking to add to the stress.

Soldiers don't know how they'll react in an actual combat situation until they see combat. Luckily I haven't been there myself. An aircraft crew won't know how it'll react to an actual emergency before it's seen one. But: The more you train, the harder you train, the better you'll perform if the **** hits the fan - this crew seems to have done an outstanding job and cudos to the crew and BA for that.

The point is: Training. Crews do, PAX don't. Accept this as a fact and then strive to improve the briefings, the information given when purchasing tickets, when orders are given to evacuate. Perhaps reduce the amount and size of carry-ons. Whatever. But do not think that merely prosecuting some dude will have PAX all over the world rationally thinking - in a situation of emergency, of panic - that "Oh noes, I better not take that carry-on with me, 'cause then I'll get prosecuted". Just doesn't work that way.

Mr Oleo Strut

9th Sep 2015, 18:53

I cannot imagine, and don't even want to, the awful prospect of being confined in a busy, smoke-filled aircraft cabin desperately trying to get out. It must be the stuff of nightmares and it is to the eternal credit of the crew and all concerned that there were no fatalities. As regards those carrying-off, they're lucky they weren't set upon by other irate passengers.

I can, however, offer an insight of what it is like to be evacuated by lifeboat from a large ship on fire. I was watching a film in the ship's cinema with many others when it suddenly filled with smoke, alarms and sirens sounded and we were handed life-jackets and told in no uncertain manner to evacuate to the boat deck. There we were directed into lifeboats and lowered into the black water. Luckily it was calm, but I have never forgotten the experience. Terrifying. That all happened for real without any warning at a big French maritime museum (St Nazaire) and was part of the standard museum tour which was centred in the old German U-boat pens. Unforgetable.

lomapaseo

9th Sep 2015, 18:57

I think there is a pretty broad consensus that passengers evacuating with hand luggage is a safety issue. I certainly share that view. Still though...

As a paying passenger I don't want to hear arguments that I am the issue.

Fix the damn machine

so I don't become a burden

John in YVR

9th Sep 2015, 19:05

As a paying passenger I don't want to hear arguments that I am the issue.

Fix the damn machine

so I don't become a burdenWow. What a reply!

You better stay off trains, boats and out of cars and busses too.

In fact don't go near trucks or tractors either.

4468

9th Sep 2015, 19:07

As a paying passenger I don't want to hear arguments that I am the issue.

Fix the damn machine

so I don't become a burden
Perhaps YOU aren't "the issue"?

But after the crew do a totally professional job trying to get the newspaper readers and magazine rustlers out the burning aircraft, wouldn't it be a shame if YOU were the one to get stuck behind a pile of bodies in an aisle or emergency exit because some other selfish .... couldn't possibly be parted from their wheelie bag?

You got family? Wonder what their take would be on those denying your exit??

Just a thought?

9 lives

9th Sep 2015, 19:34

As a paying passenger I don't want to hear arguments that I am the issue.

Fix the damn machine

so I don't become a burden

You (fare paying passenger) are not the issue, and the machine does not require fixing. Your bahaviour could be an issue, unless you follow the crew instructions exactly!

Or, hire your own personal aircraft, which perhaps can be flown to your convenience!

Gertrude the Wombat

9th Sep 2015, 19:46

But PAX don't train for an evacuation. Best they'll listen to the safety instructions, read the safety folder, find the nearest exit and try to remember. But they haven't done the drill in a dark cabin, half filled with smoke, flames engulfing the fuselage and people screaming and panicking to add to the stress.
Just asked one of my kids;

"You're on a plane, it's on fire, you're been yelled at to evacuate, what's the most stupid thing you could possibly imagine doing next?"

He thought for quite a long time (several seconds) and said "fiddle around with the overhead locker getting my bag out?".

OwnNav

9th Sep 2015, 19:57

Well done Captain Henkey, can't be many BOAC Hamsters left now !
How many millions of miles, countless pax, all the sim checks just for these few seconds of decision...

Backseat Dane

9th Sep 2015, 20:06

Just asked one of my kids;

"You're on a plane, it's on fire, you're been yelled at to evacuate, what's the most stupid thing you could possibly imagine doing next?"

He thought for quite a long time (several seconds) and said "fiddle around with the overhead locker getting my bag out?".

Obviously. But will your son actually act accordingly if he ever should find himself in a real emergency? You don't know - and neither does he.

When I trained to deploy one of our instructors had an anec***e. I don't know if it's real or just that, but: In some US city cops where training how to disarm an attacker with a gun. They'd train 1 on 1 with one acting as the attacker, the other as the cop. After the cop disarmed "the attacker" he'd hand back the pistol and they'd have another go. In other words: He was taught to hand back the gun to the attacker - which ended up getting him killed when handing a gun back to an actual attacker.

It's anec***al but not entirely unbelievable. When in an emergency, when stressed to the max, we tend to fall back on the procedures we know, lodged in our memory and our muscles, the acts our body remembers. And when we disembark a plane - we grab our carry-ons.

When I'm seated at an overwing exit I firmly believe that I'll act as I should, should an emergency occur. But can I say for sure that I won't be trying to push the door OUT and delay an evacuation, instead of pulling it towards myself, tilt it and throw it out of the plane as I should? No. We probably all imagine ourselves as the one who's cool, calm and collected and saves the day - but until we've been there we don't know how we'll react. And to rely on the threat of prosecution to get PAX to leave their carry-ons behind is missing the point of human nature entirely.

Just saying.

Arfur Dent

9th Sep 2015, 20:27

Just listen to the ATC tape at #11. Super professional. Decisive. Calm. Quick reaction by Fire trucks and successful outcome. Was it really the Skipper's last flight (or so)? Bad luck for him but good luck for everyone else.
Outstanding job by all concerned.
Very well done. :D

Taildragger67

9th Sep 2015, 20:28

IMVHO as SLF, part of this is down to the airlines themselves. Charging punters for checking bags encourages them to take as much in to the cabin as they can. It might be better to stop charging for checked bags, and impose a much tighter limit on materials permitted in the cabin (eg. a laptop bag, baby needs or medication bag), which could easily fit under a seat and not be a hold-up in an evacuation, even if grabbed. The overhead bins could then hold the IFE boxes.

Part of the checked bag issue, however, is the hassle factor in having to check bags at departure, and wait hopefully and patiently for them to emerge at the other end. Waiting 40 mins at EWR for a bag to come off an aircraft parked at the closest stand to the terminal building does not engender confidence in anything changing there, however.

Perhaps the safety demo / video should also advise passports and wallets be kept on the person, and shoes on, whilst the passenger signs are on at each end.

I do not condone any evacuating passenger taking the time to get their roll-aboard out of the overhead, but if you remove the temptation, you remove the problem.

In any event, well done to all the crew, ATC and firies. All out & OK, best possible outcome. Voices on the tape all calm & professional in what must've been a fraught period.

And I suspect Lomapaseo's comment might've been tongue-in-cheek; what a standard SLF might think.

chuks

9th Sep 2015, 20:37

I paid good money for my Apple MacBook Pro, and now you expect me to just leave it there in that overhead bin, just because someone is telling me that I have to leave the aircraft, for no obvious reason? Yes, of course I have my wallet and passport on me, but wait a minute ... where's my iPhone? And my new Hugo Boss jacket! Look, it only takes a minute or two or three for me to find my stuff and then I shall get right on with it, whatever it is my servants want me to do. (I paid good money for that ticket, so that those stewardesses, waitresses really, are working for me!)

Uh-huh ....

Sober Lark

9th Sep 2015, 20:44

Just watched some videos and guys over there you certainly can be proud of your airline.

Who was the other person in the cockpit?

TheiC

9th Sep 2015, 20:48

Three thoughts on bags:

First, returning some years ago from a long haul first class with KLM, my hold bag was overweight for the short-haul back to the UK on another carrier. The check-in lady at AMS instructed me to put lots of things in my (not to be weighed) cabin bags. I pointed out the hazard this would pose in causing burst lockers etc and she looked at me as if I was a nutter. The problem seems to begin with corporate behaviour, as this lady exemplified.

Two, we provide pilots with an error-tolerant environment, where their normal, error-prone, behaviour, will not cause catastrophe. Why do we not consider providing our untrained, frightened, passengers, with an environment in which they too can err, and try to keep their belongings with them in an extremely stressful situation?

Three, the tombstone imperative tells us that this will not change until and unless there are many deaths. Each evacuation in which passengers leave the aircraft with their belongings and without awful consequences justifies the status quo, rather than evidences the need for change.

ATC Watcher

9th Sep 2015, 20:51

There is always a major difference between what a pax should do and actually does during an emergency. Same for crew by the way, if you look carefully at the Turkish A330 video of the evac in KTM you will see a large number of ( cabin ?) crew nicely together on the tarmac with their carry-ons bags at the bottom of the slides. And those guys are supposed to be trained !

320goat

9th Sep 2015, 20:58

As has been stated before, everyone reacts differently whether they have listened to the safety brief or not.......Fight or Flight.......we all learn about it. I just hope that my reaction in an emergency is flight and woe betide anyone getting their luggage down from the overhead locker when I am wanting to get the hell out.

Of course I hope I never find out what my reaction would be!

It seems as though everything went pretty smoothly, although I am sure the ensuing investigation will confirm that or not. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, I hope that I carry out my duties to the level of professionalism that has been shown here by all the crew in this incident.

Regards,

320

JWM

9th Sep 2015, 21:00

The whole business of risk caused by pax grabbing cabin bags before leaving is a real issue and probably should be laid at the door of the bean counters who, as someone said, are addicted to the baggage revenue stream, despite the very real safety issues. Whatever the airline publicity may say, these bureaucrats really are NOT focused on safety as are the people who have to fly the aircraft day in day out !
The really lucky thing about this incident is that the engine exploded BEFORE the plane was in the air.

Megaton

9th Sep 2015, 21:14

Sober Lark

Who was the other person in the cockpit?

Vegas-Gatwick is a three crew trip. I'm not sure quite who you mean but I guess it was the heavy/augmented crew member. On a more positive note, the aircraft in question is one of the unbunked hulls 😆

EGPI10BR

9th Sep 2015, 21:25

They don't make 'em like that any more.

Good job done by all crew, ATC and AFRS and probably PAX as well.

:D

Misty.

stormin norman

9th Sep 2015, 21:35

Nice to see some factual reporting without the usual roll out of the so called 'experts' on TV.

Uncle Fred

9th Sep 2015, 21:39

IMVHO as SLF, part of this is down to the airlines themselves. Charging punters for checking bags encourages them to take as much in to the cabin as they can. It might be better to stop charging for checked bags, and impose a much tighter limit on materials permitted in the cabin (eg. a laptop bag, baby needs or medication bag), which could easily fit under a seat and not be a hold-up in an evacuation, even if grabbed. The overhead bins could then hold the IFE boxes.

Part of the checked bag issue, however, is the hassle factor in having to check bags at departure, and wait hopefully and patiently for them to emerge at the other end. Waiting 40 mins at EWR for a bag to come off an aircraft parked at the closest stand to the terminal building does not engender confidence in anything changing there, however.

Another motivation for the punters to carry on as much as possible is the tendency, to put it mildly, for items in checked luggage to go missing.

Now I am sure that everyone who handles the checked bag is of the utmost probity, but with the security services having free access to the bags...

I have not had anything lifted from checked bags, but I have spoken with many who have. Are all their claims accurate? Not sure but I see no reason not to believe them. Perhaps others could lend some insight into whether this is a real problem or not.

obgraham

9th Sep 2015, 22:13

My own profession was medical, though an amateur interest in flying. I found over the years that though we docs are frequently a rude and condescending lot, when there is a serious emergency, or perhaps a surgical case goes unexpectedly difficult, the professional in us takes over. A calm demeanor, and willingness to do what is necessary in cooperation with everyone else involved usually leads to the best outcome.

I'm pleased to see that you professional pilot folks have that same sort of ingrained mindset. It serves you well when it's needed, and the rest of us also.

Isn't that the true definition of "professional" in whatever field of endeavor?

Sober Lark

9th Sep 2015, 22:27

Thanks Megaton. I suppose it was the media concentrating on just one person that got to me - not to detract from that person whatsoever, but it was a team effort from all employees on that aircraft and boy what a 'team'. I sincerely hope they will all be recognised as such in the days to come.

Dairyground

9th Sep 2015, 22:56

The still photograph in post #3 and the video in #10 both appear to show the main seat of the fire as being on the ground between the port engine and the fuselage. Notice that the fire engines appear to direct their first spaays onto the ground, rather than onto the wing or engine - they are only attacked later. This suggests that whatever emerged from the side of the engine ruptured fuel pipework or penetrated a tank. Since later pictures do not show any obvious outflow of fuel, it seems likely that thw wing tank is intact and the fuel was escaping from pipework downstream from an operating shutoff valve.

Perhaps if the failure had occurred a few seconds later, after V1, the damage would have been less, withe fire extinguishing itself in the air through lack of fuel.

underfire

9th Sep 2015, 23:13

quite a few images here, cant figure if it has been posted yet..

Images of British Airways jet that caught fire in Vegas seems to show engine EXPLODED | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228323/Dramatic-new-images-British-Airways-jet-caught-fire-Vegas-engine-EXPLODED-spraying-cabin-pieces-burning-shrapnel.html)

Pilot makes quite the fashion statement?!?!

frankpgh

9th Sep 2015, 23:54

British Airways fire: Source cites fire suppression - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/us/las-vegas-british-airways-fire/index.html)

"The British Airways jet's fire indication light did come on at some point, the source close to the investigation said. And the plane did have fire suppression equipment that was deployed, but it didn't extinguish the fire.

Investigators are looking into a few possibilities such as whether or not the fire suppression equipment worked properly or whether a fuel line ruptured, causing the fire to spread."

lomapaseo

10th Sep 2015, 00:06

Images of British Airways jet that caught fire in Vegas seems to show engine EXPLODED | Daily Mail Online

Some pictures here that lend themselves to photo-enhancement

I see no signs of shrapnel damage. As some said much earlier in this thread it doesn't look like an uncontained disk rotor. Nor do I see signs of extreme pressure release (some call this an explosion). Instead the pictures of the externals of the engine pod and wing go hand in hand with a persistent ground pool fire.

The closest I have seen to this is and old-fashion gear box fire on the bottom of an engine that remained persistent even to the point where on ground fire services had to wait for it to burn itself out.

The source of the pool fire in this event will be most interesting.

malcolm380

10th Sep 2015, 00:44

I recently flew EWR-LHR-EWR return in the same GE90 powered 777 model as G-VIIO, and since the implementation of the new carry-on regulations. My roll-along went in the overhead, and my smaller bag for my laptop, which also included some medications, toiletries, wallet, passport, etc, was given a yellow label saying handbag/laptop bag, and this bag must be placed under the seat in front of you. I have no disagreement at all with all the arguments about leaving cabin baggage with wheels, indeed everything placed in the overheads, right there in the overheads in the event of an evacuation. However, with a light bag on the floor, I'd say it was far safer to pick it up and take it with me on leaving the plane in an emergency, rather than it remaining on the floor.

Gilmorrie

10th Sep 2015, 01:17

Suggestion: lock and unlock all carry-on bins remotely from the cockpit. Medicines, etc., should be carried in luggage that fits under the seat. Charging for checked baggage makes the carry-on problem worse.

9 lives

10th Sep 2015, 01:31

Suggestion: lock and unlock all carry-on bins remotely from the cockpit.

Ah, one more system for the pilots to manage, which adds tens of thousands to the cost of the aircraft, and then fails to release the overhead bins when it should do at the gate. But of course the pax will be patient:rolleyes:

Charging for checked baggage makes the carry-on problem worse.

Yup, baggage under should be free, anything carried into the cabin should be charged by the pound, then five times the price per pound for over ten pounds.....

Mojo_69

10th Sep 2015, 01:46

Thanks v much Whip, for your post of the BA SOP & memory items.

Autothrottle Arm Switch ... Off
Thrust Lever Left ... Closed
Fuel Control Switch Left ... Cutoff
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Pull
If Fire Eng message remains -
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Rotate to stop & hold 1 sec
If Fire Eng message still displayed after 30 secs -
Engine Fire Switch Left Rotate to other bottle

Just out of interest, does anyone know what the difference in effect on the aircraft systems would be if the procedure was:

Autothrottle Arm Switch ... Off
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Pull
If Fire Eng message remains -
Engine Fire Switch Left ... Rotate to stop & hold 1 sec
If Fire Eng message still displayed after 30 secs -
Engine Fire Switch Left Rotate to other bottle

I appreciate that confirming and methodically shutting down the correct engine is standard procedure - just wondering how the above would affect the B777?

Airbubba

10th Sep 2015, 02:01

BA SOP's :- After STOP called and being achieved, PNH might well advise TWR of intentions.
Capt continues (else resumes) as PH and when safely stopped (if circumstances & brain functions allow : stop close to a taxiway for easy access of emergency vehicles; if RWY width & surroundings appropriate, nose into side of fault if headwind; away if tailwind).
Capt calls "Identify the Failure".
FO presumably called "Engine Fire Left"; fault confirmed between both.
Capt calls for "Fire Engine Left Memory Items".

Great job to the BA crew!

Some procedural thoughts and questions for my friends at BA and other carriers.

Over the years (and the bankruptcies and mergers ;)) I've seen the RTO procedures, like other ground ops, done different ways at different places.

Some airlines have the FO do the reject if he or she was the pilot flying and then hand the plane over to the PIC when stopped as seems the case with BA. Others have the captain always take control immediately when the reject is announced.

At BA can any of the flight deck crew members call a rejected takeoff?

At some carriers, the fault will be called, but only the captain can decide to reject.

It seems that on many U.S. carriers the current RTO callout is 'Reject'. It used to be 'Abort' but that was deemed unsuitable for these modern times. I can see where BA's 'Stop' might be preferable to 'Reject' as being less judgmental. I used to joke about this wacko PC stuff in aviation but I don't anymore. :rolleyes:

Years ago there were James Michener lists of memory items for things like engine fires and evacuation. At various carriers they were called bold face, boxed items or phase one memory items.

A friend at Air Canada claimed that he had to be able to recite by memory all of the QRH drills including non-normals like low oil pressure. It was back when AC still did their own charts so maybe he wasn't joking.

Is there still a long laundry list of memory items at BA?

The trend I've seen with both Boeing and Airbus procedures is to eliminate most memory items in recent years. And, in the U.S., I would say that procedures and checklists seem to be gradually standardizing more on the manufacturer's manuals than legacy company procedures from another aircraft decades ago.