BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas

[bnt]

The pilot on this flight was literally one return trip away from retirement, so it's understandable that after this he's just decided "that'll do" (BBC News story).

On the topic of cabin baggage: I'm flying DUB-BOS-JAX tomorrow, returning the same way 2 weeks later. I will have my wallet and essential docs in jacket pockets. The jacket will be in the overhead locker, and if I need to evacuate, I'll grab my jacket only. I understand the "grab nothing" concept, but compared to the hassle of being stuck in a foreign country with nothing but the clothes on my back, I'll risk extra second or three it takes to grab my jacket on the way out the door. I won't be obstructing anyone else in the process.

[stagger]

Here's an image I don't think has been posted yet.

Are those curved marks in the charred area at the bottom damage from debris penetration?

[PhoenixDaCat]

They're slating the pax who exited with luggage on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 right now, so at least a few million people will be made aware of the issue now.

[blue_ashy]

After seeing better pictures, the fan turbine blades look fully intact but the cowling is completely ruined which seemingly points to a failure within the compressor and subsequent uncontained failure.

We can draw quite a few comparisons here to the AA 767-200 that burst into flames at LAX. ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 767-223ER N330AA Los Angeles International Airport, CA (LAX)

It would be interesting if any recent engine related incidents related to surge, vibration etc had been reported on this aircraft.

[golfyankeesierra]

Did anyone post a metar yet?
The flames and smoke were engulfing the hull and that creates the same hazards as the BA Manchester accident.
Wonder whether it was a result of (high pressure) fuel spray in the direction of the plane or a crosswind.
We are trained to consider wind direction in case of fire after a RTO and frankly it is very hard to maneuver a heavy plane on a 45m wide runway into (or away from) the wind but the pictures again show how a fire on the wing easily eats at the airplane.

[golfyankeesierra]

Sorry, found it already on ASN. Takeoff reported to be at 1612Z so not much of a crosswind.
Still, next profcheck the wind will be on my mind more then before (when we usually get exactly the same scenario).

copy/paste from ASN (they only mixed up UTC/local):
15:56 UTC / 22:56 local time:
KLAS 082256Z 00000KT 10SM SCT130 SCT180 38/05 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP067 ACC SE T03830050
16:31 UTC / 23:31 local time:
KLAS 082331Z 34008KT 10SM FEW130 SCT180 39/05 A2981 RMK AO2 T03890050

[Mapleflot]

If the industry is enthusiastically encouraging pax to keep luggage with them - reinforced by financial penalty for checking-in hold luggage - we cannot then complain when they take their full permitted quota into the cabin with them.

On the other hand, putting that baggage in the hold... will probably mean more cheap bad quality consumer Lithium batteries ending up there where they can't be stomped on when necessary. Just something that crossed my mind. Maybe the stats on this are not that strong. But the huge increase in cabin baggage (and corresponding reduction in hold check-ins) seems to be simultaneous with the increase in cheap Lithium batteries being carried by all and sundry.

[portmanteau]

cabin baggage

airscrew, we mustnt get into another once -in- a- blue moon knee-jerk must -do- something situ like two -pilots -on- the flight -deck. that said I am surprised nay staggered that BA allows 46kg repeat 46kg cabin baggage per adult and per child. am just wondering how you get such weight into one bag no bigger than 45x36x20 cm and another no bigger than 56x45x25 cm.

[Sober Lark]

Check out pictures of the evacuation of the Twin Towers and most are carrying briefcases / handbags etc. It seems to be a natural reaction and perhaps it can't be prevented?

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by garylovesbeer

Whew, that was a close call, I do hope the aircraft was evacuated before the fire broke through into the cargo/underfloor area...

[bbrown1664]

Check out pictures of the evacuation of the Twin Towers and most are carrying briefcases / handbags etc. It seems to be a natural reaction and perhaps it can't be prevented?

Many of the people evacuating there were still on their way into work so didn't stop to pick up their cases etc.

Another scenario to give to people would be Manchester. How many of the victims there would still be alive today of they had a few more seconds to get out the door? Many people died there because of smoke inhalation just seconds from the door. I am in no way saying that baggage was to blame on that one but pointing out a few seconds delay because a bozo (or 20) in front of you decide to go to the overhead to retrieve something can make all the difference.

If your that worried about your passport etc, keep them in your pocket. If you want to keep them in your jacket pocket you should make a choice. Leave the jacket on until after TO and then put it in the locker or leave it behind and get the hell off the aircraft without slowing anyone else down.

Final option for those that want to take their bags is to wait until EVERYONE else is off the plane before you go to the locker.

[PAXboy]

Whilst bean counters might like the revenue of baggage - the trend for large carry-ons started 25+ years before charging started in earnest.

Following the 1980s deregulation, carriers implemented Hub-and-Spoke. Many pax found that they made the Hub connection - but their bags did not. So they did the obvious thing and started carrying on ever more baggage.

Later, this was 'monetised' but only because the practise was already established. So the carriers did start this but not because of charging pax for baggage. History is all.

[Walnut]

Typhoid suggested that modern reverse systems only deflect the cold bypass air. I agree However the STOP actions will require the throttles being closed and then placed in the idle reverse position. This will ready the engine for a reverse power application if needed. I suspect a combustion chamber split on the inboard side of the engine causing a fire which was diverted into the fuselage by fortunately a low power steam of fan air. They were lucky, the 9 secs to stop the a/c plus a bit of thinking time before the fuel was cut off was enough to cause such major damage.

[Volume]

...and to make it looking more dramatic, the use the poorly aligned picture taken by a pax in panic, cut off the ground, so it looks like the aircraft is sitting on its nose with the NLG failed...
What a load of

[etrang]

BA are one of the few airlines that allow a 23kg cabin bag. Other "national carriers" allow 7kg.

Most carriers only allow 7kg cabin bags. If BA really does allow 23kg it should be passengers suing BA for endangering the pax, not the other way round.

[KTF]

Its here in black and white: Hand baggage allowances | Baggage essentials | British Airways

[strake]

There does appear to be quite some hysteria surrounding the baggage issue.
Firstly, apart from a couple of instances, in the published images the bags are small or laptop size. Secondly and this will ring true with any frequent airline traveler (as opposed to 'armchair experts'), there is no way that a group of passengers evacuating in an emergency are going to stand patiently while someone fumbles around in or indeed even attempts to open an overhead bin. The reality, as shown in all the reporting, is there were no problems. Flight crew, cabin crew and passengers all dealt with the emergency using training and common sense and walked away. The real issue is why the engine caused an uncontained explosion and fire. I guess we'll find out in about six months.

[infrequentflyer789]

Originally Posted by aox

Well, I'm going to risk adding to your annoyance by pointing out that this issue is being reported, so at least there are chances public awareness may tend to increase.

The opposite side of the story is also starting to get out, as it has in previous incidents: Passengers stranded after plane fire - Story | Southern Nevada - Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City | LasVegasNow | KLAS-TV

Read that as "passengers who followed the rules stranded", because that is what it is. This isn't just an airline problem, it involves immigration, airports etc., trouble is that just allows everyone to disclaim responsibility for the problem (get incarcerated in immigration due to not having documents - not the airlines fault - if it is because your plane crashed, well that isn't immigration's fault...). Until the industry as a whole gets together to resolve the problem, the system will continue to effectively punish those who obey instructions and follow the rules (by failing to mitigate or compensate for the entirely predictable consequences of doing so), and reward those who don't. It doesn't take an expert in behavioural science to predict what people do as a result.


As an aside, as someone who is starting to need medication to stay alive, the medication issue is interesting. Guess where all the medical advice says to keep you vital meds if flying ? - yup, in your hand baggage. Not sure of the reasoning on that, I would have said "on your person" but I can see that it is getting to the point where all my meds plus (in future) testing kits and supplies, are not going to fit into any reasonable (non-impeding-evac) clothing/pockets so a small bag will be needed, but rules are rules and I don't think you can have one small bag for critical medication _and_ one cabin bag for your other stuff - it's only one bag, right?

I think the medical advice is maybe based on you're either in hospital, in which case you medical id bracelet/pendant/whatever should get you the right stuff, or you have your hand luggage. But that doesn't cover being evac-ed uninjured and then held in immigration for a couple of days without access to medication. In theory, I guess there should be someone official in immigration or wherever to get you the medication you need before you become an (avoidable) medical emergency. Question is, in event of evac am I going to bet my life on that, would you ?

[Centaurus]

However the STOP actions will require the throttles being closed and then placed in the idle reverse position. This will ready the engine for a reverse power application if needed.

I don't know about a 777 but a stop decision at high speed normally would assume full reverse especially on a wet runway where braking efficiency is less than on a dry surface.
If the cause of the abort was an engine fire warning, consideration should be made to not use reverse on that engine to minimise chances of the reverse plume spreading any fire to the fuselage. See report on the British Air Tours Boeing 737 disaster at Manchester, England in August 1985. In that accident the fire erupted from a severe fuel leak in the left wing caused by red hot shrapnel from an uncontained engine break up piercing the underside of the wing tank. The reverse thrust plume atomised the fuel causing a huge fire that breached the fuselage.

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/374.pdf

Also, the act of selecting idle reverse during an abort means the reverse is at ground idle instead of flight idle. In the 737 for example, flight idle drops to ground idle four seconds after touch down. That means a longer spin up time to get full reverse.
If the pilot decides brakes only deceleration is too slow for his liking, by the time he realise it and selects full reverse, it takes a relatively long time to wind up from ground idle reverse to full reverse. By then the speed is probably quite low where reverse is inefficient anyway.

[Gridl0k]

Final option for those that want to take their bags is to wait until EVERYONE else is off the plane before you go to the locker.

Heh, you've solved it. "Queue... or... get out of burning plane..." - the English are doomed.