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 29th Sep 2015, 23:36
  #541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,472
With all this talk about engine damage vs aircraft damage in the millions, maybe a definition of what is an engine part not covered is in order.

Just a guess (I didn't write the insurance spec). The part that goes to the GE shop is the engine. The parts that make up the nacelle and pylon that are heat damage are aircraft parts. It might make mucho million dollars difference in the insurance costs.
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 30th Sep 2015, 00:08
  #542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 60
Posts: 165
2 minor updates from the local paper (Las Vegas Review Journal)

$375/ day being charged for tie down.
The area by the cargo terminal where the plane is parked is not approved for MX, it would have to be moved elsewhere to start repairs.
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2015, 23:39
  #543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Under the Bovingdon hold
Posts: 43
A little inside info.

Boeing and BA have both NDTed the wing and it has a clean bill of health. There will need to be a major skin repair forward of the wing on the left side, as the hull was breached at that location.
All apparently do-able, but cost yet to be assessed, which will be the deal maker/breaker as to whether it will be financially viable.
The cost of hangar space to do the work will be a major factor, apparently.
Aerostar6 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2015, 02:21
  #544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Sorry if this has been stated before....
If this scenario occurred with a Boeing 787...Where do the CAC(cabin air compressors) draw in ambient air for pressurisation?????
With the amount of smoke enveloping the fuselage,both CACS would have been affected...with an obvious outcome,unless i have missed something(possibly)!
Yaw String is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2015, 12:06
  #545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by Yaw String View Post
Sorry if this has been stated before....
If this scenario occurred with a Boeing 787...Where do the CAC(cabin air compressors) draw in ambient air for pressurisation?????
With the amount of smoke enveloping the fuselage,both CACS would have been affected...with an obvious outcome,unless i have missed something(possibly)!
The CACs are just forward of the wing root. http://image.slidesharecdn.com/b787-...?cb=1324255052

However, on the ground will the pressurization systems actually be running? Even if they were I would think that they are simple to switch off.
Ian W is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2015, 14:01
  #546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,207
I doubt that they would need a hangar for this job regardless it would appear that no hangar on the airport would be capable of handling the 777 other than maybe the Sands hangar which is probably not available at any price. The Boeing teams have worked in much worse conditions so I don't see lack of a hangar being a deal breaker. LAS weather is cooling down and quite nice at this time of the year. Hard to imagine the airport authority denying them permission to do the work on the freight ramp but whatever
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2015, 17:14
  #547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Ian W,.....I meant to put !!! instead of ????..
Sure you can switch the CACs off, both of them, then you have no air coming in,but may already have a cabin full of smoke...
Point is,on the 787,the CAC intakes are much closer to each other,than with the separation achieved by using engine bleed supplied air.
So smoke entering the cabin via one intake,could also, be more likely to enter via the other,too...as would most certainly have been the case,in Vegas.
Yaw String is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2015, 17:20
  #548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Angry

Originally Posted by Yaw String
So smoke entering the cabin via one intake,could also, be more likely to enter via the other,too...as would most certainly have been the case,in Vegas.
Not good!!
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2015, 18:18
  #549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by Yaw String View Post
Ian W,.....I meant to put !!! instead of ????..
Sure you can switch the CACs off, both of them, then you have no air coming in,but may already have a cabin full of smoke...
Point is,on the 787,the CAC intakes are much closer to each other,than with the separation achieved by using engine bleed supplied air.
So smoke entering the cabin via one intake,could also, be more likely to enter via the other,too...as would most certainly have been the case,in Vegas.
In the air the CAC has the advantage that an engine problem will not cause the input cabin air to be contaminated.

If the aircraft is on the ground having just RTO with engine fire, both engines are shut down. So with bleed air all air input stops. With CAC air power down CAC all air input stops.

Sorry I do not see a significant difference apart from advantages in flight and in normal ops of no cabin air contamination.
Ian W is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2015, 21:08
  #550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 3,033
Sure you can switch the CACs off, both of them,
Both? Four surely?
TURIN is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 07:36
  #551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Four indeed,with two manual pack switches controlling each pair.( along with auto control of individual CAC)

Once both engines are secured,as in the evacuation checklist,the CACs would shut down,with no APU operating,as would normally be the case...my thoughts were about how much smoke would have been drawn in to the aircraft,in the Vegas scenario...before the CACs shut down...
Yaw String is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 07:57
  #552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
But at least this would be "healthy smoke" from burning fuel, not the "nasty smoke" from burning plastics... And the soot will most probably be caught by the filters. But nothing I would like to try personally
Maybe somebody at Boeing has already had the same smart idea, and the procedures for takeoff are accordingly selected? You probably don´t want to have the electric load during takeoff run either. Just like with packless takeoffs on conventional aircraft.
It would be great to learn more.
Volume is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 19:44
  #553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 79
Posts: 4,579
Volume:
You probably don´t want to have the electric load during takeoff run either. Just like with packless takeoffs on conventional aircraft.
I've gotta think about this in terms of "special case" high-altitude fields like Bogota, Quito, La Paz (4000 m altitude, 4000 m runway) and some Tibetan fields. While aircraft performance is enhanced by "packs off", I'd think some pressurization would be better for pax & crew alertness.
barit1 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 22:01
  #554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 74
Posts: 2,112
(I thought this was a B777 engine-fire accident thread?)

However, barit1, doesn't using the APU during take-off solve your problem? On conventional jets, it's always been a possible alternative to "packs off" when performance is critical (although frowned upon by bean-counters).
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2015, 23:43
  #555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 79
Posts: 4,579
Chris Scott, you are correct. Not all my neurons are connected, I fear.

Thanks for refreshing my cognition.
barit1 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2015, 00:34
  #556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
A couple of more points. The aircraft was being washed (and not just the area around the smoke/fire damage, but above and aft of the wings along the fuselage).

The engine was removed and taken to GE some time ago, I'm guessing around 2 weeks ago. Since then, a bunch of both BA and Boeing engieers have been looking over the aircraft where it is currently parked.

BA requested hangar space as that is a preferable way to repair under cover. However, as Spooky has already surmised, the only hangar even capable of accommodating this size aircraft would be the Sands Corp (aka Venetian) on the far west side of the airport. Since it is privately owned, BA/Boeing would have to make a separate deal with Mr. Adelson for that! Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way and crossing two live runways to boot. Personally, I don't see that happening for practical reasons.

Once the final decision is made (and I think a repair will be effected), it will simply be relocated to another spot on the same cargo ramp. Weather is beginning to cool off this month (today, a balmy 32*C) and I'm sure they've worked under far worse conditions than Las Vegas in the fall!

The DOA is likely to charge some fees and the number quoted earlier on is in the ballpark. So, yes, there are other financial considerations, too.

Looking at the aircraft, it already looks cleaned up a lot and my best guess is they will start work on it within the next 2-3 weeks.
alexb757 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2015, 04:48
  #557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,342
Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way and crossing two live runways to boot. Personally, I don't see that happening for practical reasons.
I used to tow B74C's across field 3 active runways to remote parking with regularity KMIA.

A hangar is preferable yet I have seen a RAMS team repair similar damage N621FF repaired outdoors by pitching a tent over it. Burnt fuselage skins may complicate things but I believe they can do it. Wind conditions are the factor in jacking and shoring, do not think Vegas is worse than in Miami.

Photo: N621FF (CN: 21730) Boeing 747-259B(SF) by Javier Rodriguez - IBERIAN SPOTTERS Photoid:7933771 - JetPhotos.Net
grounded27 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2015, 11:27
  #558 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,269
Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way
Why not? Happens all the time at LHR, for example.
overstress is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2015, 15:45
  #559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Not sure it would be a good idea to tow a heavy all that way
Why not? Happens all the time at LHR, for example.
I think alexb757 referred to the current status of the aircraft (ie structural damage). Normally you could tow a plane around the world
wingview is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2015, 22:47
  #560 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,269
That's not what he said, though.
overstress 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.