BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let me explain further re towing and a few other things.
Sure, any aircraft could be towed across runways, taxiways, roads etc. However, knowing KLAS intimately, and as one who responded to the incident last month, it would be impractical primarily because of possible FOD issues.
As mentioned previously, that hangar is a private hangar and I cannot imagine that Sheldon Adelson would consider moving any of his aircraft to take a 777 for several months inside.
Second, there is plenty of space on the cargo ramp and if you don't have to move it far, or at all, then why move it to the other side of the airport?
Never even mentioned KMIA! Working outside at KLAS right now and going in to December is just as pleasant as KMIA
Wind would obviously be a concern and we get plenty of that.
Yes, they have been talking about tie-downs and drilling in to the concrete of the ramp!
No action as of yet - other than cleaning teams the past few days.
Sure, any aircraft could be towed across runways, taxiways, roads etc. However, knowing KLAS intimately, and as one who responded to the incident last month, it would be impractical primarily because of possible FOD issues.
As mentioned previously, that hangar is a private hangar and I cannot imagine that Sheldon Adelson would consider moving any of his aircraft to take a 777 for several months inside.
Second, there is plenty of space on the cargo ramp and if you don't have to move it far, or at all, then why move it to the other side of the airport?
Never even mentioned KMIA! Working outside at KLAS right now and going in to December is just as pleasant as KMIA
Wind would obviously be a concern and we get plenty of that.Yes, they have been talking about tie-downs and drilling in to the concrete of the ramp!
No action as of yet - other than cleaning teams the past few days.
Three pilots on a Las Lhr flight, one for inflight relief. He has no duties on takeoff as it is a two crew operation, no Boeing checklists involve three pilots.
Both PF and PNF are trained/experienced and authorised to call Stop in BA on rejected takeoff, so no difference whoever is flying in this case.
Both PF and PNF are trained/experienced and authorised to call Stop in BA on rejected takeoff, so no difference whoever is flying in this case.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: FL490
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three pilots on a Las Lhr flight, one for inflight relief. He has no duties on takeoff as it is a two crew operation, no Boeing checklists involve three pilots.
Both PF and PNF are trained/experienced and authorised to call Stop in BA on rejected takeoff, so no difference whoever is flying in this case.
Both PF and PNF are trained/experienced and authorised to call Stop in BA on rejected takeoff, so no difference whoever is flying in this case.
I have heard that the relief pilot checked the cabin situation and then informed the operating flight crew of the need to evacuate?
--EDIT--
I also found it rather interesting that some media outlets were reporting originally that Peter Burkill was the captain of that flight...
Just curious about the role of the 3rd pilot. Does the BA SOP not have anything about calling anything on the take off roll with respect to abnormal situations?
Genuine curiosity nothing more.
BBK
Genuine curiosity nothing more.
BBK
if he/she is only there for FTL purposes, do they even have to occupy the jump seat for take-off?
BBK - re SOPs, Yes they should call out anything abnormal if they think the operating crew are not aware of it, but they shouldn't call "stop".
Last edited by wiggy; 4th Oct 2015 at 18:33.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapaseo wrote -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.
The definition of an engine generally means all of those parts required to run the engine on a test stand. Different policies have different definitions but this is generally the rule of thumb.
So the engine will include the core engine, the QEC and accessories, the nose cowl, fan cowls and thrust reversers. All these are required on a high bypass engine (although the test cell will use their own equipment).
Pylon will be airframe in this case.
So quite a lot of dollars there for someone to pay for! GE maybe?
As for it being a write off, no idea. It would'nt surprise me with the age of the aircraft etc. although if a lot of the damage is superficial and there is no main spar damage etc. it might be quite economic to repair.
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.
The definition of an engine generally means all of those parts required to run the engine on a test stand. Different policies have different definitions but this is generally the rule of thumb.
So the engine will include the core engine, the QEC and accessories, the nose cowl, fan cowls and thrust reversers. All these are required on a high bypass engine (although the test cell will use their own equipment).
Pylon will be airframe in this case.
So quite a lot of dollars there for someone to pay for! GE maybe?
As for it being a write off, no idea. It would'nt surprise me with the age of the aircraft etc. although if a lot of the damage is superficial and there is no main spar damage etc. it might be quite economic to repair.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Issues Second Update on British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas
NTSB Issues Second Update on British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas
________________________________________
Oct. 6, 2015
As part of its ongoing investigation into the September 8, 2015, engine fire during takeoff of British Airways flight 2276, a Boeing 777, at McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, the NTSB today released the following investigative update.
• Investigators disassembled and documented the GE90 engine at the GE facility in Evandale, Ohio. Group members from the FAA, GE, and Boeing, along with the United Kingdom’s accredited representative from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and their technical advisor, British Airways, were in attendance.
• Engine examination revealed that a portion of the stage 8-10 spool in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) section had failed, liberating fragments that breached the engine case and cowling. Additional pieces of the HPC spool were recovered from inside the engine and retained for metallurgical examination.
• The NTSB Materials Laboratory examined engine parts gathered from the scene.
• HPC parts recovered during the disassembly of the engine were examined at the GE facility.
• All pieces of the damaged stage 8 disk rim have been collected.
• The fracture initiated in the HPC stage 8 disk web, a part of the stage 8-10 spool. The NTSB will continue metallurgical evaluations of the disk and the fracture features.
• GE is performing high-priority, focused inspections of HPC hardware from other GE90 engines. The inspection data is being gathered to support the investigation and to determine further investigative actions.
Additional updates will be provided as new factual information is developed.
________________________________________
Oct. 6, 2015
As part of its ongoing investigation into the September 8, 2015, engine fire during takeoff of British Airways flight 2276, a Boeing 777, at McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, the NTSB today released the following investigative update.
• Investigators disassembled and documented the GE90 engine at the GE facility in Evandale, Ohio. Group members from the FAA, GE, and Boeing, along with the United Kingdom’s accredited representative from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and their technical advisor, British Airways, were in attendance.
• Engine examination revealed that a portion of the stage 8-10 spool in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) section had failed, liberating fragments that breached the engine case and cowling. Additional pieces of the HPC spool were recovered from inside the engine and retained for metallurgical examination.
• The NTSB Materials Laboratory examined engine parts gathered from the scene.
• HPC parts recovered during the disassembly of the engine were examined at the GE facility.
• All pieces of the damaged stage 8 disk rim have been collected.
• The fracture initiated in the HPC stage 8 disk web, a part of the stage 8-10 spool. The NTSB will continue metallurgical evaluations of the disk and the fracture features.
• GE is performing high-priority, focused inspections of HPC hardware from other GE90 engines. The inspection data is being gathered to support the investigation and to determine further investigative actions.
Additional updates will be provided as new factual information is developed.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: FL490
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am quite anxious for the final report because I still am yet to hear whether the third pilot (acting as relief first officer) played a very important role in the outcome of this incident?
And thus if this "second officer" did play a vital and contributing role, the question must then be asked, "should flight engineers be returned to the flight deck?"
Happy landings!
And thus if this "second officer" did play a vital and contributing role, the question must then be asked, "should flight engineers be returned to the flight deck?"
Happy landings!
the question must then be asked, "should flight engineers be returned to the flight deck?"
And the answer that will be given is "No".
If there has to be a third fight deck crew member it makes much more sense these days to make any third bod a pilot.....they can act as in-flight relief.
In any event as Mr Magnetic has pointed out you'd still have to show that the lack of a third crewmember would have generated a less favourable outcome.