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 11th Sep 2015, 17:56
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 269
Regarding the large number of people who took baggage down the slides: an experienced former CC member gave a credible, if politically incorrect, explanation on this evening's Today programme on BBC Radio 4.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06950lr, drag the player forward to time 53:40.
OldLurker is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 18:05
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: gashbag
Age: 49
Posts: 556
They could just leave you to burn if you prefer.
PURPLE PITOT is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 18:11
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chertsey
Posts: 1
Ian Simpson's take on the Vegas incident...

Take a deep breath before you read this, but Ian Simpson, chemtrail expert extraordinaire, has diagnosed the incident at LAS, I guess the air crash investigators can all go home now...

look-up.org.uk/ba-la-fire/

It will make you wince, it may make you cry with laughter, it may make you wonder when the definition of the word 'truth' was changed.

Bunky767 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 19:39
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 26
Had this gone on a few seconds longer, there might well have been hull loss. And massive loss of life.
One small point. The hull is lost. The fuel was cut off, though there was probably a major leak from the 70psi main fuel pump line severed by the uncontained failure of the high pressure compressor. If you watch the video carefully, the fire had slightly subsided BEFORE the fire crew arrived. The cut-off of fuel had done its job.

Whether the cabin would have been penentrated without expedient evacuation and arrival of fire services is a moot point. However, I will agree with you that it was a close call in that most of those hospitalised were due to smoke inhalation. If you recall the BA disater from 30 years, it was indeed smoke inhalation that killed most of the souls on board.

In this respect, it was indeed a close call.
eppy is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 20:13
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,581
Originally Posted by eppy View Post
However, I will agree with you that it was a close call in that most of those hospitalised were due to smoke inhalation.
Other reports suggest that the majority of injuries sustained were abrasions resulting, typically, from the slide evacuation.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 20:30
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: France
Posts: 29
Other reports suggest that the majority of injuries sustained were abrasions resulting, typically, from the slide evacuation.
I'm not sure these injuries are as serious as those caused by inhalation of smoke.
Alain67 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 20:56
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Mr Optimistic, I don't think you understand what people are trying to explain to you. As former cabin crew with three airlines (including BA), the commands we practice for an evacuation drill include "get out, leave everything behind", yelled at the top of our voice, as we "gently" push people in the small of the back, down the slide. In our annual recurrent drills, some crew (sitting as passengers) are asked to take baggage to the door during the emergency evacuation, and within seconds there is a line of people that can't get out as the crew try to make the passenger leave the case behind. Leave the case by the door, the exit is blocked, do we tell the passenger to return the case to the overhead locker ten rows back?!

Many passengers find it impossible to obey the fasten seat belt sign, listen to the demo yada yada, and perhaps it is these same people who choose to ignore the yelled commands "get out, leave everything behind"

But I have to say, who knows what we would do in a panic. We may not react the way we think we would. Tossing the cases over the side of the slide isn't an option, as there may well be passengers under there, or emergency services. But taking cases away causes a line of blocked passengers in seconds.

Personally I think the crew did an amazing job, and I am just glad I retired with nothing more serious than helping out with a few faints and panic attacks.
MzGuilty is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 21:40
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 418
Bags are important. If a highly experienced flight crew values them as highly as this video shows how are you going to get meer passengers to leave them behind?
http://youtu.be/lvqEXbMVANM

No bags were harmed in the filming of this video!

Last edited by Sailvi767; 11th Sep 2015 at 21:52.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 21:46
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 687
Airbubba
Does Boeing have 13 drills with memory items these days? I sure don't think so.
To be clear, I didn't mention a figure at all. I was commenting on a certain operator to whom you referred, that recently aligned itself with both A&B manufacturers' operations.

For the avoidance of doubt, that operator currently shows the following memory items for a (non ECL) large Boeing:

1) Aborted Eng Start/Eng Autostart (same single item drill)
2) Cabin Altitude
3) Eng Lim/Surge/Stall
4) Multiple Eng Fail/Stall
5) Fire Eng/Sev Damage/Sep
6) IAS Disagree

Along with the following manoeuvres

1) RTO
2) Stall
3) GPWS
4) Windshear
5) TCAS

I'm intrigued to know which of those items are non memory in your outfit? I too have over 3 decades on A & B. (And others!) Perhaps we have more in common than we realise?

So whip, that doesn't include Fire APU, Tailpipe Fire, or Pax Evac. All done with reference to checklists, and for very good reason, I would suggest?
4468 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2015, 22:02
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 1
A similar incident, with similar results:





PWA Flight 501 was a regularly scheduled flight that flew between Calgary, Alberta and Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The aircraft caught fire during takeoff on March 22, 1984.



The Boeing 737 pushed back from the gate at Calgary International Airport at 7:35 AM and proceeded to take off north on runway 34 (16/34), carrying five crew members and 114 passengers. At 7:42 AM, a loud popping sound was heard 20 seconds into takeoff. The aircraft began to vibrate and veer (back) to the left, and a fire broke out in the rear of the aircraft. The pilot, Stan Fleming, managed to abort the take-off.

An emergency evacuation was ordered as the fire continued to roar. Five people were seriously injured and 22 suffered minor injuries, but no-one was killed. Although the CFR crew attended to the fire in very short order, the aircraft was destroyed by the fire.

The fire was attributed to a faulty compressor disc that blew apart, rupturing the fuel tanks. This incident was similar to the cause of the British Airtours Flight 28M disaster that claimed 55 lives in 1985.
evansb is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 01:26
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
Yes, it was his last flight - he told me so himself still standing under the aircraft on the runway!
alexb757 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 04:05
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 518
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tY2HzWCvhw

China Airlines 738 fire in Okinawa. At least the Fire Services seem to have been quicker in Vegas.

And yes, people took their belongings then also.
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 09:05
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 53
I have been reading the FAA AD designed to prevent the type of incident which occurred to the BA 777 at Las Vegas. I found the following parts of the document interesting:


Request

Two commenters, General Electric Company and The Boeing Company, requested that we remove the “UnsafeCondition” 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.



Well done the FAA for 'sticking to its guns'.


Inspections of the HPCR 8-10 Stage Spool

(f)(1) At the next piece-part exposure of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool after the effective date of this AD, perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) and eddy current inspection (ECI) of the weld joint between the 9-10 stages of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool for cracks.

(2) Thereafter, perform repetitive FPIs and ECIs of the weld joint between the 9-10 stages of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool for cracks at every piece-part exposure of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool.


Presumably, this type of inspection can be performed only during major engine overhaul, with the engine removed from the aircraft? If so, will the authorities now need to consider more frequent engine overhauls?


What seems to be missing is any move to find a permanent fix for the problem such as a redesign/manufacture of a HP turbofan which does not have an inherent weakness.
Avionista is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 09:55
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 38
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9114090

Avionista,

Thank you for researching this and summarising key detail. You pose a critical question. I hope it will be answered.
juice is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 10:45
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 68
Posts: 427
What seems to be missing is any move to find a permanent fix for the problem such as a redesign/manufacture of a HP turbofan which does not have an inherent weakness
If it is missing it means it was irrelevant, namely design wasn't in question rather perhaps the flaw in manufacturing of random nature. I am not aware of any manufacturing process on this planet that would assure 100% fail free product.
olasek is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 11:24
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 85
I think that fail-safe might be a more productive route for turbines -- Think how car windscreens have evolved from big lethal broken shards through regularly shaped small bits to the current 'broken but still hanging together' approach
Jetstream67 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 11:41
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5
In reply to iomapaseo:

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.
If you watch the video, the first thing the fire appliances do is direct their jets on to the ground beneath the wing.
bateleur is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 12:06
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
I think that fail-safe might be a more productive route for turbines -- Think how car windscreens have evolved from big lethal broken shards through regularly shaped small bits to the current 'broken but still hanging together' approach
If you're suggesting that the engine casing should be able to retain any parts from a broken turbine breaking out, that's simply not feasible.

the speed/energy in these parts (especially at take-off power) is simply staggering, you would need something like several inches of Chobham armour backed with heavy armour plate.
Scuffers is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 13:10
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 53
If it is missing it means it was irrelevant, namely design wasn't in question rather perhaps the flaw in manufacturing of random nature.
If the problem is a manufacturing flaw in a small number of HP turbofans, why does the AD require repetitive inspections, ad infinitum. Surely, the replacement of any components found to be defective would suffice. The FAA, perhaps, believes the problem could develop over time in any of these HP turbofans, hence their requirement for repeated EFI/ECI scans.

I agree that nothing man-made is ever 100% reliable, but vital components should strive for a MTBF well in excess of their expected lifecycle.
Avionista is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2015, 13:16
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 698
If you're suggesting that the engine casing should be able to retain any parts from a broken turbine breaking out, that's simply not feasible.
I recall video footage of the testing of RR engines where this very feature is demonstrated as a test that the engine has to pass before certification.
funfly 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.