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

BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas

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 on fire in Las Vegas

Old 9th Sep 2015, 01:36
  #21 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Metro man
Brilliantly handled, another British Airtours Manchester 1985 averted. The AAIB made numerous recommendations after this accident and they seem to have paid off.
Yes, I was just thinking about that again, and the recent apology on the 30th anniversary.

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?
aox is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 01:39
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by 6000PIC View Post
A near perfect example of the 90 second evacuation time limit the authorities require for aircraft certification. Well handled. Curious how long it took CFR to get to the aircraft after the button was pushed. Nice to see no passengers were run over by the CFR vehicles as @ SF. Certainly a bit chaotic , but glad professionalism of the crew and others prevented loss of life. Congrats to BA crew to a job well done.
Listening to the recording, ATC had already pressed the crash alarm before the cockpit crew announced the evacuation to ATC and called for fire and rescue (which was also done in a very timely fashion). At which point you can already hear the EVAC wailer noise from the cockpit in the background.
B-HKD is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 01:41
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 257
The crew reported that they were stopping some time before asking for fire services and indicating that they had a fire. I would think that they were not in a position to manoeuvre to put the fire on the lee side once they had stopped.
Feathers McGraw is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 01:43
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
here someone compiled pictures from various angles and positions

British Airways plane catches fire on Las Vegas runway (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)
st7860 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 01:49
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 370
Some history on the engine:

G-VIIO is fitted with the GE90-85B, although a GE90, it is a up-rated GE90-76B which is the original and baseline GE90.

Here the FAA's Type Certificate Data Sheet for the GE90

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...9EN_Rev_18.pdf

GE90-85B Same as GE90-76B except higher thrust ratings. Corresponding
Rating Plug changes
The more recent -90/92/94B and -110/115B are significantly different and incorporate a lot of lessons learned from the original service entry issues faced with the -76/77
B-HKD is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 01:56
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,472
The source and persistence of the fuel will be of significant interest, considering the various shut off valves. Once stopped and fuel pooling is present evacuation time is critical before the fuselage is breached.
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 01:57
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Age: 55
Posts: 89
Listening to the recording, ATC had already pressed the crash alarm before the cockpit crew announced the evacuation to ATC and called for fire and rescue (which was also done in a very timely fashion). At which point you can already hear the EVAC wailer noise from the cockpit in the background.
There was around 12 seconds between the stop and the fire being mentioned in the mayday call, no doubt aviating before communicating, however I suspect the tower would have hit the crash alarm the moment smoke was spotted.
markis10 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 02:46
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
It appear the lessons from Airtours,Manchester have been learned and applied.
The pax retrieving cabin hand luggage before evacuation should be prosecuted for 'endangering life' or similar.
Nov71 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 03:02
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 60
Posts: 165
From KLAS off of 07 you could swing to the NE and try to hit lake mead. Your only other options if you want to try and land a T7 would be US93 or US95 to the S SE. Both 4 lane highways, straight, with full shoulders. But you are looking at a 35' wide runway ( with hard packed earth on both sides)

You might try for KBVU (Boulder City NV), but the runways are more suited to a king air or small jet.
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 03:03
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ZRH
Age: 58
Posts: 562
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.
AN2 Driver is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 03:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 60
Posts: 165
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. but that is right over my house, so please don't miss.
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 03:51
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 222
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
herman the crab is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 03:59
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,069
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.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 04:09
  #34 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 70
Posts: 2,097
At least maybe the 'carry on' problem will be now accepted as a global issue and not just a developing world issue.
ZFT is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 04:11
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,742
The first fire appliance raced to the scene with its four floodlight masts raised???


Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is online now  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 04:25
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 59
Posts: 129
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
bud leon is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 04:28
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 449
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.
etrang is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 04:31
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 59
Posts: 129
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.
bud leon is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 05:18
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 71
Posts: 959
Cabin crew

Would these excellent crew be some of those who BA are handing a massive salary cut or redundancy to?
blind pew is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2015, 05:18
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by bud leon View Post
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.
Ranger One is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.