BA 747 Engine Fire

[DingerX]

So far I've heard no confirmation that there indeed was an engine fire requiring the crew to complete an engine fire drill and emergency return.

The only fire reports are from those on the ground and likely associated with an engine surge recoverable by shutting off the fuel.

One of the problems is that the ATC archives linked above are missing the arrival/departure frequencies for the first seven minutes of the flight, and tower only has the first seven minutes. So you only hear BA 116 at the very start of the problem, and then again after the flames are extinguished. That said, here's what the tower recordings do say:
(times are EST according to the liveatc recordings):


2323:02 BA116 Cleared for T/O
2324:09 (TWR) "Speedbird 116 Heavy you got what appears to be some flames coming out one of your engines on the left side it appears"
2324:19 "116" (loud wooping sound in the background)
...
2325:10 UA840 (from ground), notes "I think that thing is gonna burn off" (This doesn't mean, as suggested above, that the "engine is gonna burn off", but more likely "the fire is gonna burn off")
2327:20 American 314 Kennedy TWR 31R you're clear to land
2327:24 Okay clear to land I understand you still have an emergency in progress
2327:27 Yes we do
2327:31 Oh yeah, I see him he's got flames comin out
2327:34 Yeah, we know that. We told him and we're working with him
2327:37 He knows that he's got flames
2327:39 Yes
...
2328:27 TWR Two things AA 314, I understand we're cleared to land 31R and also we don't see the flames coming out of his uh left side anymore.



So whatever it was, it burned for between 3 1/2 and 5 minutes.

You may continue speculating

[sikeano]

any one know the reason for fire ?
the atc link was very good

[unmanned transport]

Too many Rolls turning into Donks down thru the years.
Substandard mtce or substandard design ????

IFSDs of CF6-80s per flt hrs are less than Rolls.

[very_interested]

I posted on this thread because I was full of admiration for the crew of BA116. Just listening to the ATC tapes and hearing the calm in the voice of the pilot(s) was unreal.

Yep the ATC guy asked for the fuel remaining in pounds, and the guy on the radio responded with the maximum landing weight in tons... Listening to it again and again it seems obvious they were happy to come back and land as soon as possible. The pilots were comfortable with their weight. They were confident in the ability of their aircraft.

If some of the professionals here would like to incorporate this scenario into the training of aircrew that would be great.

As to the ATC asking fuel onboard and passengers. I have a sneaky feeling that may be a standard question that is required.

[L337]

unmanned transport:

IFSDs of CF6-80s per flt hrs are less than Rolls.

To prevent RR lawers arriving with a writ, maybe you might like to back up your assertion with some evidence?

L337

[sikeano]

Originally Posted by unmanned transport

Too many Rolls turning into Donks down thru the years.
Substandard mtce or substandard design ????

IFSDs of CF6-80s per flt hrs are less than Rolls.

i do not think the design of the rolls engine are substandard ba have a good reputation for their mtce could be fatigue these planes do not get any rest unlike us humans they go normally 25 hours in a day

[easyprison]

Watchdog slams BA’s air safety

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...965953,00.html

Off the front page of today's sunday times

[BenThere]

The lowest max landing weight on a -200 or later 747 is 630,000 lbs. Landing in excess is allowed, the critical factor being sink rate at touchdown, which if more than 300 fpm could cause landing gear collapse or structural breakup. Max landing weight for runway length must also be calculated. If the aircraft weighed 570,000 lbs., the crew knew at the initial takeoff brief they were capable of an immediate return and landing. Assuming there were no deferred maintenance discrepancies, such as an inoperative brake or anti-skid, which penalize max landing weight.

[M.Mouse]

Since The Times started to compete with the ghastly UK tabloids I stopped reading it.

Hands up the airline of comparable size which has a perfect maintenance record.

[skiesfull]

Ben There
Max landing weight in kilos for the B747-400 is 285,763kgs, at this weight max rate of descent at touchdown from Boeing is apparently 600fpm. The max take-off weight for most pax -400s is 397,893kgs - the max R.O.D. at touchdown at this weight is 360fpm. Such a rate of descent would be considered a"hard landing". Overweight landings up to max take-off weight are now not restricted to emergencies, but are (apparently) an option to the pilot for other considerations. If you can get airborne at max weight, then in most circumstances, you should be able to land on the same runway, without the need to dump fuel. It is an option, not a directive! In my opinion, it would need very careful consideration and a bit of nerve to do so.

[BenThere]

Skiesful,

You're right, the max sink at max weight is 360 fpm.

I fly the -200 which max lands at 630,000. Was thinking the -400 had substantially higher gross weight limits for landing as well as takeoff. Not trying to wiggle, but those numbers are as old as the airplanes. If I am landing a 747 above max gross weight, I'm going to make the touchdown as soft as I can. A normal landing at 300 fpm is firm at any weight.

A key point I was trying to make is that in this incident, with the aircraft below normal landing weight, the crew discarded the need to dump during the takeoff brief, so it wasn't a factor. I agree that an airplane on fire needs to get on the ground and landing heavy is much better than delaying to dump as a rule.

Whatever you do, you're going to be standing at the end of the long mahogony table with no ashtrays explaining yourself.

[HotDog]

Very interested and Capt. Airclues, ATC requested fuel on board and being America, that would be the weight in pounds. Answer was 285 tons which equals 129,276 Kgs. Not an unreasonable trans Atlantic fuel load to be expected. Pretty switched on crew, I would think.

[skiesfull]

Admittedly, I was in school many,many years ago, but even then 285 tons (or tonnes) approximated to 285,000kgs!!!!

[TyroPicard]

HotDog .... reality check

285 ton [short, US] = 258,547.6509 kilogram

285,000 pound = 129.27382545 metric ton

TP

[HotDog]

Skiesfull and Tyro, your figures are absolutely right, same as they were when I went to school also, probably a long time before you. Although the answer to the fuel on board query was 285 tons, with a metric mind at 2,000" on an engine out approach, I probably would have answered 285 tons instead of pounds and 285,000Lbs was 129,276 Kgs when I went to school or whenever I signed the fuel uplift docket.

[unmanned transport]

Watchdog slams BA’s air safety

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...965953,00.html
*****************************************
Systemic problems!!

Will they make it into the EU "blacklist" of unsafe airlines?

[Jet II]

Re: BA 747 Engine Fire

Originally Posted by unmanned transport

Will they make it into the EU "blacklist" of unsafe airlines?

can you call it a 'blacklist' now?

after all:

Crime Museum's nickname 'racist'

An Asian officer has complained that using the name "Black Museum" for the Metropolitan Police's famous archive of crime artefacts is racist.

from the Beeb

[Fargoo]

Re: BA 747 Engine Fire

The Sunday Times.

Made me laugh reading that article today then noticing what service they were advertising along the bottom of the front page

It seems to me they've taken a few of the stories from PPRUNE, shaved some stuff from the AAIB reports and put the lot in the blender.
One of the incidents mentioned hasn't even been investigated to completion yet but that didn't stop them concluding it was a maintenance error.

I'm sure the AAIB will love being called a Watchdog now. Maybe that's against their human right being called dogs??

Lastly, David Learjet - disappointed with that comment.

Can't fault the Times for their integrity, biggest news of the day - Ukraines gas supply switched off by the Russians for possible politically motivated purposes yet they decide to launch a full scale attack on us.

Rant over

[M.Mouse]

Re: BA 747 Engine Fire

I probably would have answered 285 tons instead of pounds and 285,000Lbs was 129,276 Kgs

BA do not use lbs. in its calculations for fuel or performance, only kgs. and, therefore, tonnes.

285 tonnes is a BA 747-400's MLW.

Terrific isn't it that unmanned transport, in his or her haste to publicise the Times article, cannot be bothered to read the entire thread and therefore repeats the post 8 posts above.

[RRAAMJET]

Re: BA 747 Engine Fire

Well done, BA crew...Rainboe, couldn't agree more with your earlier comments (I'm one of the few here in the US who agrees with the LAX BA continuing policy from a few months ago...let's face it - most BA crews know what the hell they're doing, and it shows.)

This incident is very similar to one that occured at Cathay when I was there:
the #1, I believe, went kaboom and burned on take-off from Kai Tak for FRA; the Capt and crew did an excellent turn-back in crummy wx to 31 at max weight with the motor still burning (Capt said to me in the bar he could see the glow reflected on his windshield post - no pressure, eh?). No dump, I recall, due fire. They had a body-gear fire on stopping and evac in record time...all-round well-done.

There must be piccies here somewhere on PPRUNE from that one. Capt's retired now, but his crew are still around posting on pprune - maybe they can comment on this BA crew's performance with authority, having been there themselves?

PS flown rollers for most of my 000's of hours - great engines. What a load of b*llox posted about build quality, reliability etc by previous amateur troller.