BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too soon to speculate about the cause, but this event and QF32 raise a question.
Jet engine cowlings have shown to be able to contain the debris in case of a compressor blade/turbine blade failure at maximum RPM (as per certification reqs), so why were these two failures uncontained ?
Jet engine cowlings have shown to be able to contain the debris in case of a compressor blade/turbine blade failure at maximum RPM (as per certification reqs), so why were these two failures uncontained ?
A blade failure should be contained. A disk failure cannot be contained.
Looking at the close-up of the damage, my first reaction would undoubtedly get me moderated for language. My second reaction is that it's a very good thing indeed they didn't have to take that into the air...
mary
All very well in theory...perhaps...maybe....... but I do hope no-one is suggesting taking a fire (any fire) into the air from below V1.
Mine as well.
Some contributors have suggested if the takeoff had been continued the engine fire may have been more easily contained
My second reaction is that it's a very good thing indeed they didn't have to take that into the air...
ExXB,
Yes it is a problem. It causes delays and injuries, often for others, and it puts pax and crew at increased risk in scenarios such as this one. Cabin bags can be 20kg plus and will accelerate as they go down the slide, just as their owners do.
Yes it is a problem. It causes delays and injuries, often for others, and it puts pax and crew at increased risk in scenarios such as this one. Cabin bags can be 20kg plus and will accelerate as they go down the slide, just as their owners do.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExXXB
Its not about the size of the carry on. Its about the time it takes to get the carry on out of the bins or out from wherever, and the resulting delay in evacuation that will lead to deaths if the fire gets inside the passenger compartment !
Who cares about valuables or medication if you have burnt to death or through your actions caused the death of someone else.
FG
Who cares about valuables or medication if you have burnt to death or through your actions caused the death of someone else.
FG
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheelies down chutes is possibly not as important an issue as chutes deployed on the side of the fire.
I'm sure that there will be an extremely thorough investigation (FAA and BA).
I'm sure that there will be an extremely thorough investigation (FAA and BA).
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 80
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank goodness they all got off. A miracle and great tribute to the crew. As regards personal stuff - wallet, phone, keys and some meds, in zipped pockets or in a bag round my neck at all times. A bit lumpy but secure. Shoes left on till after take off.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been advocating central locking of overheads for several years now, as it would provide the only guaranteed means of stopping pax retrieving bags.
It could just mean you'd have a bunch of people struggling trying to open overhead lockers and getting in the way of others rather than moving down the aisle with their bags...
It's one thing to try and design better systems, but they need to accomodate how people actually behave, not how you'd like them to.
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows getting bigger;
A lot of the evacuation seems to have been through the L4 exit which is far further from the fire than the R2 exit. Why the preoccupation with finding out why they didn't only use exits on the right, when some of those may not have been useable and L4 clearly was?
A lot of the evacuation seems to have been through the L4 exit which is far further from the fire than the R2 exit. Why the preoccupation with finding out why they didn't only use exits on the right, when some of those may not have been useable and L4 clearly was?
The emergency exits are some distance from the engine and the extent of the fire may not have been immediately apparent to the cabin crew. Difficult to say, evacuate on one side only and take twice as long or get everyone off as quickly as possible fearing another China Airlines 737 inferno.
The only things certain about an emergency evacuation is that it will be chaotic and each case will be different.
Fifth hull loss on an otherwise very safe and reliable aircraft. 2x MAS, 1x Egypt Air and previous BA.
The only things certain about an emergency evacuation is that it will be chaotic and each case will be different.
Fifth hull loss on an otherwise very safe and reliable aircraft. 2x MAS, 1x Egypt Air and previous BA.
cows
Really? I suspect 
the cabin crew are told to assess the hazard at their door and assess/deploy accordingly, AFAIK in their SOPS there's never a blanket ban on using a whole side.
It's a big hull - Looking at the images here, some grainy, I certainly don't see any one in officialdom taking issue with the use of 1L or 4L.
Wheelies down chutes is possibly not as important an issue as chutes deployed on the side of the fire.
the cabin crew are told to assess the hazard at their door and assess/deploy accordingly, AFAIK in their SOPS there's never a blanket ban on using a whole side.It's a big hull - Looking at the images here, some grainy, I certainly don't see any one in officialdom taking issue with the use of 1L or 4L.
Last edited by wiggy; 9th Sep 2015 at 07:23.
Copied from Twitter (Jacob Steinberg):
'They opened the back door and slide went down and smoke started coming in plane, followed by mad dash to front. A lot of panic'
He doesn't state which side the 'back door' was on.
'They opened the back door and slide went down and smoke started coming in plane, followed by mad dash to front. A lot of panic'
He doesn't state which side the 'back door' was on.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In defence of SLF...
A lot is being written yet again about how stupid passengers are who grab their hand luggage during an emergency evacuation. Well, yes, but only up to a point, in my view.
Despite the regular calls for people to be fined, then jailed, then hung, drawn and quartered for being so life-endangeringly dumb, can I ask that you consider a few things.
* I know PAX get the pre-flight safety briefing and some of them even read the card and look around for their nearest exit, bearing in mind it might be behind them. But they haven't ever actually been through this experience before. They haven't been through the mock but realistic 'OUT OUT OUT' evacuation drills that the crew have gone through. They have never been through anything like this before in their lives.
* And so - in a highly-stressed, totally unfamiliar situation - one which they have only seen in movies - their brain reacts weirdly. It tries to make sense of what's going on. It tries to re-establish some normality. "The plane has stopped, I must get my hand luggage."
* Perhaps the people sitting over the port-side wing, looking at the flames and smoke, thought to themselves, "Gosh, I really must get off this airplane just as tickity-boo as possible." (Or words to that effect which the moderators on this website won't allow.) But perhaps the passengers on the starboard side 20 rows back thought, "This is a bit weird. Oh well, grab the bag and go..."
* To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced about the argument that people think they need to get their passport or medication (how many people have medication with them on the flight? A lot fewer than try to take their hand luggage in an emergency, I suspect). But perhaps we can conclude that their are different motives for doing so - however weird, unacceptable or possibly understandable they may be.
So now, have a read of this: it's from an Airbus training document on "Unplanned Ground Evacuation" (as distinct from "Unplanned Airborne Evacuation"? Never mind - I digress).
It is important to note that during evacuations, especially when there is a possible life-threatening situation, passengers may react in many different ways, such as by:
• Panicking (screaming, crying, hysteria)
• Freezing up (not able to react)
• Not being aware that danger exists
• Pushing
• Exiting with carry-on baggage.
Carry-on Baggage
Many studies, such as the Safety Study conducted in 2000 by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and investigation reports document the fact that in some cases, it was necessary for the cabin crew to argue with passengers because passengers attempted to carry baggage to the exits during emergencies (in one case, the evacuating passenger tried to exit with his guitar!).
Carry-on baggage brought to the exits can cause blockages and congestion at the exit and in the aisles, and reduce the efficiency of the evacuation.
An Australian Transportation Safety Board (ATSB) report in 2001 reported that in an accident that occurred in 1999, some passengers were authorized to take baggage with them as they evacuated the aircraft. When the cabin crew attempted to enforce that passengers leave their carry-on baggage behind, the passenger flow from the exit became less orderly.
This example illustrates an important point: If the cabin crew gives the command to passengers to leave their carry-on baggage behind during the evacuation, this may be too late.
Therefore, the cabin crew should instruct passengers to leave their baggage at the beginning of the evacuation. Some examples of possible commands are:
• "Open seatbelts, leave everything"
• "Open seatbelts, no baggage".
The cabin crew can also include this information in the passenger pre-flight safety briefing in order to reinforce the message, i.e.: "If an emergency evacuation is necessary, leave all your belongings behind."
Have a look again at that first paragraph:
It is important to note that during evacuations, especially when there is a possible life-threatening situation, passengers may react in many different ways, such as by:
• Panicking (screaming, crying, hysteria)
• Freezing up (not able to react)
• Not being aware that danger exists
• Pushing
• Exiting with carry-on baggage.
So instead of automatically calling passengers idiots, it might be better to devote your energies to calling on your superiors and employers to press for industry research into how people react in stressful situations and how to anticipate that, plan for it and design airplanes around that fact. Locking the overhead lockers sounds like a great idea, but might just add another element of confusion and result in more people blocking the aisles. But we need some research.
Oh - and in that Asiana crash, apparently, "MANY of the pax grabbed personal items because they had FALLEN OUT of the bins and were blocking the aisles, and the FA's were telling people to grab the bags."
Despite the regular calls for people to be fined, then jailed, then hung, drawn and quartered for being so life-endangeringly dumb, can I ask that you consider a few things.
* I know PAX get the pre-flight safety briefing and some of them even read the card and look around for their nearest exit, bearing in mind it might be behind them. But they haven't ever actually been through this experience before. They haven't been through the mock but realistic 'OUT OUT OUT' evacuation drills that the crew have gone through. They have never been through anything like this before in their lives.
* And so - in a highly-stressed, totally unfamiliar situation - one which they have only seen in movies - their brain reacts weirdly. It tries to make sense of what's going on. It tries to re-establish some normality. "The plane has stopped, I must get my hand luggage."
* Perhaps the people sitting over the port-side wing, looking at the flames and smoke, thought to themselves, "Gosh, I really must get off this airplane just as tickity-boo as possible." (Or words to that effect which the moderators on this website won't allow.) But perhaps the passengers on the starboard side 20 rows back thought, "This is a bit weird. Oh well, grab the bag and go..."
* To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced about the argument that people think they need to get their passport or medication (how many people have medication with them on the flight? A lot fewer than try to take their hand luggage in an emergency, I suspect). But perhaps we can conclude that their are different motives for doing so - however weird, unacceptable or possibly understandable they may be.
So now, have a read of this: it's from an Airbus training document on "Unplanned Ground Evacuation" (as distinct from "Unplanned Airborne Evacuation"? Never mind - I digress).
It is important to note that during evacuations, especially when there is a possible life-threatening situation, passengers may react in many different ways, such as by:
• Panicking (screaming, crying, hysteria)
• Freezing up (not able to react)
• Not being aware that danger exists
• Pushing
• Exiting with carry-on baggage.
Carry-on Baggage
Many studies, such as the Safety Study conducted in 2000 by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and investigation reports document the fact that in some cases, it was necessary for the cabin crew to argue with passengers because passengers attempted to carry baggage to the exits during emergencies (in one case, the evacuating passenger tried to exit with his guitar!).
Carry-on baggage brought to the exits can cause blockages and congestion at the exit and in the aisles, and reduce the efficiency of the evacuation.
An Australian Transportation Safety Board (ATSB) report in 2001 reported that in an accident that occurred in 1999, some passengers were authorized to take baggage with them as they evacuated the aircraft. When the cabin crew attempted to enforce that passengers leave their carry-on baggage behind, the passenger flow from the exit became less orderly.
This example illustrates an important point: If the cabin crew gives the command to passengers to leave their carry-on baggage behind during the evacuation, this may be too late.
Therefore, the cabin crew should instruct passengers to leave their baggage at the beginning of the evacuation. Some examples of possible commands are:
• "Open seatbelts, leave everything"
• "Open seatbelts, no baggage".
The cabin crew can also include this information in the passenger pre-flight safety briefing in order to reinforce the message, i.e.: "If an emergency evacuation is necessary, leave all your belongings behind."
It is important to note that during evacuations, especially when there is a possible life-threatening situation, passengers may react in many different ways, such as by:
• Panicking (screaming, crying, hysteria)
• Freezing up (not able to react)
• Not being aware that danger exists
• Pushing
• Exiting with carry-on baggage.
So instead of automatically calling passengers idiots, it might be better to devote your energies to calling on your superiors and employers to press for industry research into how people react in stressful situations and how to anticipate that, plan for it and design airplanes around that fact. Locking the overhead lockers sounds like a great idea, but might just add another element of confusion and result in more people blocking the aisles. But we need some research.
Oh - and in that Asiana crash, apparently, "MANY of the pax grabbed personal items because they had FALLEN OUT of the bins and were blocking the aisles, and the FA's were telling people to grab the bags."
Last edited by Dave's brother; 9th Sep 2015 at 07:25. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Wherever the nearest braai is?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done BA and a great photo of the hostie looking as if she is containing and directing the pax! It's ALWAYS about the training isn't it! "Train hard fight easy!"
A lot has been said about cabin luggage, human behaviour in a situation like that by those who have never experienced such drama and fear shall always be unpredictable! That wont change.
I wonder how many had their shoes off before taxi?
I have advocated for many years that the safety brief should contain "Do not remove foot ware until the seat belt light has gone off"
An incident during take off, twisted metal and/or slides and running across tarmac in a panic or the dark not ideal in bare feet!
Just my two penneth worth
A lot has been said about cabin luggage, human behaviour in a situation like that by those who have never experienced such drama and fear shall always be unpredictable! That wont change.
I wonder how many had their shoes off before taxi?
I have advocated for many years that the safety brief should contain "Do not remove foot ware until the seat belt light has gone off"
An incident during take off, twisted metal and/or slides and running across tarmac in a panic or the dark not ideal in bare feet!
Just my two penneth worth
Last edited by Snapshot; 9th Sep 2015 at 07:27. Reason: left the 'un' from predictable lol
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boston USA
Age: 67
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the close-up of the wing/engine damage aftermath, it looks like the main seat of the fire was away from the engine, at or under the wing fairing. Most of the fairing (composite) has burned away completely. The youtube videos also show the fire crews tackling that area first rather than the engine and cowling. I wonder how a 787 (composite fuselage) would perform under the same conditions?
I think that inclusion in the safety video of footage showing 2 different evacuation scenarios could fix the problem of people evacuating with luggage.
The footage would be computer simulated and would show in a burning plane:
scenario 1: lots of people pause to grab luggage, so it takes 3 mins to evacuate, fire consumes the last 30% of the pax;
scenario 2: no-one stops, everyone gets out in say 90 seconds, then the fire takes hold.
This would have 2 effects: first, people might actually behave better if they had just seen this; second, if anyone did stop to grab a bag, everyone behind them would yell at them to drop it.
The problem is, people think "it will only take me 2-3 seconds to grab my bag" and they might be right. But those 2-3 seconds can add up to deaths for the last passengers.
This safety video needn't run for 3 minutes, but rather just enough to show the start and finish of each scenario.
The footage would be computer simulated and would show in a burning plane:
scenario 1: lots of people pause to grab luggage, so it takes 3 mins to evacuate, fire consumes the last 30% of the pax;
scenario 2: no-one stops, everyone gets out in say 90 seconds, then the fire takes hold.
This would have 2 effects: first, people might actually behave better if they had just seen this; second, if anyone did stop to grab a bag, everyone behind them would yell at them to drop it.
The problem is, people think "it will only take me 2-3 seconds to grab my bag" and they might be right. But those 2-3 seconds can add up to deaths for the last passengers.
This safety video needn't run for 3 minutes, but rather just enough to show the start and finish of each scenario.
Last edited by cooperplace; 9th Sep 2015 at 07:28. Reason: correct a typo
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shoes ON
Travelling Business with Aer Lingus requires one to have their shoes ON during takeoff and landing - this NEW requirement was introduced 2 years ago.
I wonder why it doesn't apply to ALL PAX - front and back?
I wonder why it doesn't apply to ALL PAX - front and back?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: ALandDownUnder
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the bags, i heard a few reports that the plane was stops for around 60 seconds before the evacuation was called, maybe some pax grabbed bags during this time knowing they would be having to exit quickly?
Obviously I wasn't there and a good job was done by the crew. My only concern was why the port side slides were deployed? It may be that no one deployed from that side? Surely it would have been a lot safer to deploy only the starboard side away from the fire and possible area where an explosion risk was most?