Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BA 777 evacuates at KORD

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BA 777 evacuates at KORD

Old 5th Oct 2008, 21:20
  #1 (permalink)  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BA 777 evacuates at KORD

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

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

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

It was unknown how many passengers were aboard.

-- Jeff Long, Chicago Tribune
British Airways flight evacuated at O'Hare - Chicago Breaking News
weasil is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2008, 21:56
  #2 (permalink)  
Junior trash
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BA195 LHR-IAH?

Non story, left ORD 2 hrs after landing, so clearly no evacuation.
Hotel Mode is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 00:40
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 56
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is not a non news story, B777 declared emergency following a fire onboard. This propmpted a full emergency response including a Hazardous material response, due to the aircrafts payload.


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

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

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

Last edited by BlueRay; 6th Oct 2008 at 01:04.
BlueRay is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 00:54
  #4 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am led to believe from a colleague in the know that this maybe Nuclear materials,
Absolute tripe.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 01:00
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 56
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK smarty what is it? And don't tell me that nuclear material never gets transported on civil aircraft!

Just read the following:

Looking For Info On South African Airways 295 Crash (1987) — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net
BlueRay is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 01:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a former Radiation Safety Officer and certified IATA dangerous goods specialist, I can assure you that radioactive materials do regularly get carried aboard passenger aircraft. There are of course proper packaging, handling and documentation procedures to be followed.

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

Nothing controversial here.
BeechNut is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 02:17
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Beechnut - We all know that its legal and safe, just that BA doesn't by policy.

Thats how M.Mouse can say what he did!
Cough is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 06:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Lincs,UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Blueray:
Yes the SAA accident leaves unanswered questions, but I did see the recovered sections from this accident. The pallet on fire had the remains of computers, trainers and tennis rackets.......................Like everyone no-one knows what caused the fire but there are certainly enough conspiracy theories to write a volume of books on this accident.

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

Link to document for those not aware of the regulations.

Carriage of Dangerous Goods Manual ? Regulatory environment
Witraz is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 07:10
  #9 (permalink)  

the lunatic fringe
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taken from the BBC news story.

BA said the smell had been caused by a fault with an in-flight TV screen.
BBC
L337 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 09:37
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BA policy is not to carry any IATA labeled radioactive/nuclear materials even if they have been cleared for carriage on commercial passenger revenue flights.

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

Cause was a smell of burning caused by a short in the IFE system.
wobble2plank is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 09:44
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
smell of burning caused by a short in the IFE system.
I wonder if there is any analysis of how many emergencies are caused by the IFE system failing. I seem to read about it every week. Perhaps the cost of all that electronics under the seat being kicked by passengers will be too much when one day one of these IFE fires brings down an aircraft!
Swedish Steve is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 09:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 82
Posts: 3,787
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I thought it was an IFE fire that brought down the Swissair MD-11?
JW411 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 10:22
  #13 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thats how M.Mouse can say what he did!
What really annoyed me was quoting 'I am led to believe from a colleague in the know' when clearly that colleague clearly wasn't.

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

If the NOTOC states dangerous goods are being carried this needs to be relayed to ATC in the event an Emergency Diversion to give the Fire Fighters an idea on what they may be having to deal with. Also hopefully any dangerous goods being carried have been packed and loaded in accordance with the ICAO rules and regulations.
Precisely what happened.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 10:58
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 86
Posts: 2,492
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
I thought it was an IFE fire that brought down the Swissair MD-11?
Me too, an IFE wiring fire in the forward fuselage roof.
brakedwell is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 11:41
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and the real news was

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

G

Last edited by groundbum; 6th Oct 2008 at 11:42. Reason: typooo
groundbum is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 11:47
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
that the BA flight had about 90 passengers onboard, according to the BBC news report. This surely can't be profitable? Is this indicative of the state of the economy? I know it's only one flight out of hundreds daily, but then BA don't publish daily load stats to the public do they!
I have heard that the Houston route doesn't normally have large amounts of passengers onboard. What it does have is lots of high paying business passengers so still makes money out of relativly few passengers compared to other flights.
747-436 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 12:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thats right, without the lucrative oil contracts I doubt that Houston would be a regular destination with BA. The fact that only 90 pax on board is not such a big deal when all of those 90 are a mix of 1st and business class, not saying that was the case here, but this is generally true on this particular route i.e not great numbers but a high proportion or premium traffic.
Artificial Horizon is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 13:11
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is of course the fact that a hurricane went through the area about 3 weeks ago with the resultant damage (both physical and to tourism).

For sure though, the oil industry is the main driver for the route which is why for a while they operated IAH via DTW? from LHR until the open skies changes allowed them to move the route to LHR (it was the first flight they moved), which always generates better results than LGW flights.
TopBunk is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 13:29
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Waterworld
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ill think youll find BA has a track record of carrying radioactive materiel. Ask Mr Litvenenko and his mates.
williewalsh is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2008, 13:39
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would appear that the emergency was declared as a result of a seat fire. So suppose we will have to keep the nuclear conspiracy for another day! lol
apaddyinuk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.