BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Forest
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re #257
Airbubba asked :-
Either PH or PNH may call "Stop".
I can only recall that the general concensus concerning other crew members in the flightdeck was that they should just draw attention to any missed warning. (I can't remember any definitive answer in the Training Manual.)
13 Checklists have memory items. Most of these have 1 or 2 lines
eg ABORTED ENGINE START
Fuel Control Switch ... Cutoff
There are 6 which are more complicated.
eg Windshear Go Around; Cabin Altitude & perhaps of more interest,
PASSENGER EVACUATION
- Captain's actions
Parking Brake ... Set
Fuel Control Switches (both) ... Off
Passenger Evacuation ... Initiate
----“This is an emergency. Evacuate. Evacuate. (Hazards at .... )”
---Evac Command Switch ... On
---ATC and/or Grd Crew ... Notify
For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with Electronic Checklists and their contribution to improved flight safety, the following may be of interest. If the aircraft detects that a Warning or Caution checklist needs to be accomplished, it/they are listed (on B777: by the engine parameters on the central screen). If more than one, then in critical order.
If the checklist has memory items, they are called for and accomplished as I previously described and then PH will call (for this example) FIRE ENGINE LEFT CHECKLIST. PNH calls up the checklist on the central lower screen, which will automatically bring up the top priority checklist. The aircraft can sense which actions have been accomplished and these will be displayed in green writing. Anything in white is an action still required and will either turn green as soon as you have moved the switch or else need you to tick the box to turn it green. At the end is shown useful information (eg decreased crosswind limit; reduced landing flap).
Most importantly, at the very end, the (for this example) FIRE ENGINE LEFT CHECKLIST COMPLETED will only show highlighted when all items have been sensed or ticked off and this highlight is confirmed by both pilots.
At BA can any of the flight deck crew members call a rejected takeoff?
I can only recall that the general concensus concerning other crew members in the flightdeck was that they should just draw attention to any missed warning. (I can't remember any definitive answer in the Training Manual.)
Is there still a long laundry list of memory items at BA?
eg ABORTED ENGINE START
Fuel Control Switch ... Cutoff
There are 6 which are more complicated.
eg Windshear Go Around; Cabin Altitude & perhaps of more interest,
PASSENGER EVACUATION
- Captain's actions
Parking Brake ... Set
Fuel Control Switches (both) ... Off
Passenger Evacuation ... Initiate
----“This is an emergency. Evacuate. Evacuate. (Hazards at .... )”
---Evac Command Switch ... On
---ATC and/or Grd Crew ... Notify
For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with Electronic Checklists and their contribution to improved flight safety, the following may be of interest. If the aircraft detects that a Warning or Caution checklist needs to be accomplished, it/they are listed (on B777: by the engine parameters on the central screen). If more than one, then in critical order.
If the checklist has memory items, they are called for and accomplished as I previously described and then PH will call (for this example) FIRE ENGINE LEFT CHECKLIST. PNH calls up the checklist on the central lower screen, which will automatically bring up the top priority checklist. The aircraft can sense which actions have been accomplished and these will be displayed in green writing. Anything in white is an action still required and will either turn green as soon as you have moved the switch or else need you to tick the box to turn it green. At the end is shown useful information (eg decreased crosswind limit; reduced landing flap).
Most importantly, at the very end, the (for this example) FIRE ENGINE LEFT CHECKLIST COMPLETED will only show highlighted when all items have been sensed or ticked off and this highlight is confirmed by both pilots.
With reference to hats and hi-viz jackets:
A colleague of mine ended up going off the end of a Boston runway at night in a DC-10 through absolutely no fault of his own. It was winter and it was snowing so as he came out of the flightdeck having completed the shutdown checks, he quickly donned his overcoat on the way out because it was bloody cold.
He then tried to get involved in the post-evacuation procedures but no one paid him any attention.
At one point, he was chucked into the back of an ambulance whilst trying to protest that he was the captain of the aircraft and was not hurt in the slightest. The enthusiastic ambulance crew assumed that he had received a head injury and was therefore not in a logical state of mind.
The problem was that he did not have his rank bars on his overcoat nor was he wearing a hi-viz jacket so, in the dark, once he put that coat on, no one could recognise that he was the captain.
Perhaps BA have learned a good lesson that some of the unpromising hysterics on this website have yet to learn.
A colleague of mine ended up going off the end of a Boston runway at night in a DC-10 through absolutely no fault of his own. It was winter and it was snowing so as he came out of the flightdeck having completed the shutdown checks, he quickly donned his overcoat on the way out because it was bloody cold.
He then tried to get involved in the post-evacuation procedures but no one paid him any attention.
At one point, he was chucked into the back of an ambulance whilst trying to protest that he was the captain of the aircraft and was not hurt in the slightest. The enthusiastic ambulance crew assumed that he had received a head injury and was therefore not in a logical state of mind.
The problem was that he did not have his rank bars on his overcoat nor was he wearing a hi-viz jacket so, in the dark, once he put that coat on, no one could recognise that he was the captain.
Perhaps BA have learned a good lesson that some of the unpromising hysterics on this website have yet to learn.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
13 Checklists have memory items. Most of these have 1 or 2 lines
eg ABORTED ENGINE START
Fuel Control Switch ... Cutoff
eg ABORTED ENGINE START
Fuel Control Switch ... Cutoff
I think a lot of this recent minimalist stuff comes from Boeing, our evac checklist has no memory items for example. Still, you are certainly expected to know what to do.
Thanks.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and you may find authorities will only accept originals
In the UK they will let a UK citizen back in with the passport number (i know from experience)
Great to see the cockpit crew came out with their hats. I hope the Captain takes one more opportunity to fly but if not have a happy retirement
Last edited by Mr Angry from Purley; 10th Sep 2015 at 17:50. Reason: added more
In the enhanced picture in this comment is there a missing fan blade in the 3 o'clock position?
Edit: No it isn't, it's just a careful coincidence of shadow relative to the blade positioning. The Daily Mail version of the picture is much clearer.
Edit: No it isn't, it's just a careful coincidence of shadow relative to the blade positioning. The Daily Mail version of the picture is much clearer.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 65
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With reference to the effect of wind, I strongly suggest you read this AAIB report;
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...988_G-BGJL.pdf
Section 2.6.1.2 Paragraph 4 explains the effect of a light crosswind on spreading an engine fire over and under the fuselage, exacerbating the problem. Turning the aircraft, if runway width permits for your type, should always be considered.
Susier, thank you for your input but I think you misunderstood me.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...988_G-BGJL.pdf
Section 2.6.1.2 Paragraph 4 explains the effect of a light crosswind on spreading an engine fire over and under the fuselage, exacerbating the problem. Turning the aircraft, if runway width permits for your type, should always be considered.
Susier, thank you for your input but I think you misunderstood me.
Last edited by CaptainX; 10th Sep 2015 at 18:03. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Issues Update on the British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas
Sept. 10, 2015
As part of its ongoing investigation into Tuesday’s engine fire that occurred during takeoff of British Airways flight 2276, a Boeing 777, at McCarran International Airport (LAS), the NTSB today released the following investigative update.
NTSB investigators arrived on scene Wednesday morning local time to begin the on-scene investigation. The NTSB investigative team includes experts in powerplants, airplane systems, and fire. The following groups will be organized: powerplants, airworthiness (airplane structure, systems, and fire), flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.
Parties to the NTSB investigation are the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), The Boeing Company, and GE Aviation. In accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13, the UK Air Accidents Investigations Branch (AAIB), as the State of the Operator, has appointed an accredited representative to assist the investigation. The UK accredited representative has initially appointed British Airways and the UK Civil Aviation Authority as technical advisors.
The following are the initial factual findings:
• British Airways flight 2276, a Boeing 777-200ER, equipped with two GE90-85B engines, registration G-VIIO, was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 129 and was enroute to London - Gatwick Airport (LGW), Horley, England.
• There were 157 passengers, including 1 lap child, and 13 crew members on board. There were several minor injuries as a result of the evacuation (mostly abrasions).
• The flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder and quick access recorder have arrived at the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Laboratory and are currently being downloaded.
• On Tuesday evening, the airplane was photographed and the runway debris documented by FAA and airport officials before airplane was towed to secluded area of the airport (in order to reopen the runway).
• Initial examination of the left engine revealed multiple breaches of the engine case in the area around the high pressure compressor.
• Examination of the material recovered from runway found several pieces of the high pressure compressor spool (approximately 7-8 inches in length).
• Initial examination of the airplane by NTSB revealed that the left engine and pylon, left fuselage structure and inboard left wing airplane were substantially damaged by the fire. This damage will be documented over the next several days.
The powerplants and airworthiness groups will continue documenting the airplane and engine over the next several days. It is anticipate that once the tooling is in place, the left engine will be removed and shipped to a facility to conduct a full teardown.
Sept. 10, 2015
As part of its ongoing investigation into Tuesday’s engine fire that occurred during takeoff of British Airways flight 2276, a Boeing 777, at McCarran International Airport (LAS), the NTSB today released the following investigative update.
NTSB investigators arrived on scene Wednesday morning local time to begin the on-scene investigation. The NTSB investigative team includes experts in powerplants, airplane systems, and fire. The following groups will be organized: powerplants, airworthiness (airplane structure, systems, and fire), flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.
Parties to the NTSB investigation are the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), The Boeing Company, and GE Aviation. In accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13, the UK Air Accidents Investigations Branch (AAIB), as the State of the Operator, has appointed an accredited representative to assist the investigation. The UK accredited representative has initially appointed British Airways and the UK Civil Aviation Authority as technical advisors.
The following are the initial factual findings:
• British Airways flight 2276, a Boeing 777-200ER, equipped with two GE90-85B engines, registration G-VIIO, was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 129 and was enroute to London - Gatwick Airport (LGW), Horley, England.
• There were 157 passengers, including 1 lap child, and 13 crew members on board. There were several minor injuries as a result of the evacuation (mostly abrasions).
• The flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder and quick access recorder have arrived at the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Laboratory and are currently being downloaded.
• On Tuesday evening, the airplane was photographed and the runway debris documented by FAA and airport officials before airplane was towed to secluded area of the airport (in order to reopen the runway).
• Initial examination of the left engine revealed multiple breaches of the engine case in the area around the high pressure compressor.
• Examination of the material recovered from runway found several pieces of the high pressure compressor spool (approximately 7-8 inches in length).
• Initial examination of the airplane by NTSB revealed that the left engine and pylon, left fuselage structure and inboard left wing airplane were substantially damaged by the fire. This damage will be documented over the next several days.
The powerplants and airworthiness groups will continue documenting the airplane and engine over the next several days. It is anticipate that once the tooling is in place, the left engine will be removed and shipped to a facility to conduct a full teardown.
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.
The cabin crew have, with delegated authority from the Pilot in Command, told you that, in the event of an evacuation, you MUST take nothing with you.
Failure to comply is a breach of the Air Navigation Order and, therefore, a criminal offence.
I don't think some on here have much idea of the legal authority granted to the PiC. We don't throw it around but the CAA may choose to do so and you may go to jail.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, unless you are wearing your jacket, you will. Your CRIMINAL act could kill people.
The cabin crew have, with delegated authority from the Pilot in Command, told you that, in the event of an evacuation, you MUST take nothing with you.
Failure to comply is a breach of the Air Navigation Order and, therefore, a criminal offence.
I don't think some on here have much idea of the legal authority granted to the PiC. We don't throw it around but the CAA may choose to do so and you may go to jail.
The cabin crew have, with delegated authority from the Pilot in Command, told you that, in the event of an evacuation, you MUST take nothing with you.
Failure to comply is a breach of the Air Navigation Order and, therefore, a criminal offence.
I don't think some on here have much idea of the legal authority granted to the PiC. We don't throw it around but the CAA may choose to do so and you may go to jail.
These threats of drawing and quartering pax who have taken their bags - or in this case jacket - with them are like photo speed traps. They do not prevent the loss of safety they are punitive after the fact. This might provide some satisfaction for the armchair critics but it does not, and will not solve the problem.
What is needed is a standard evacuation pouch/money belt that pax should have with them at all times for emergency evacuation, to contain documents and some small items. They should be told - before any emergency arises - that apart from what they are wearing the pouch is all they are allowed to take from the aircraft in an emergency.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba
"Wow, that's still a lot more memory items than we use."
As far as I'm aware, in recent years BA have re-aligned themselves with the equipment manufacturer's methods of operating. 'Back to Boeing' and similarly for Airbus.
So if you have fewer memory drills, perhaps it's because you are deviating from the manufacturer's recommendations? (Or you aren't flying Airbus/Boeing?)
"Wow, that's still a lot more memory items than we use."
As far as I'm aware, in recent years BA have re-aligned themselves with the equipment manufacturer's methods of operating. 'Back to Boeing' and similarly for Airbus.
So if you have fewer memory drills, perhaps it's because you are deviating from the manufacturer's recommendations? (Or you aren't flying Airbus/Boeing?)
from what I have seen on TV about FA training the emergency evac drill is avery noisy process with FA screaming and shouting evacuate . do this do that. Seems entirely sensible to me as confused /scared pax will from human nature respond to loud authoritative commands when they are in a state of shock.
Since people in shock or panic do not act rationally you could have a death sentence for taking bags with you and some people would still do it . So on top of mandatory changes to stupid policies and marketing to incentivise taking big bags on board lets have the usually last regulators mandate no carry-ons above a certain size and NO charging for hold baggage except traditional excess charges.
Couple that to improved safety briefings to de emphasise ditching (sorry -landing on water ) and prioritise on land evacs and not taking baggage etc mirrored in safety card or seat back slogans. ND finally crew evac training where I think they are dead right to yell at pax to 'bully' them into acting and moving to just ad Take no bags Take no bags. And I bet you would get a massive improvement -and it costs largely nothing and avoids the idea of prosecuting people who can just claim that
1)I was frightened and panicked
2 ) No one told me not to-or I didn't hear them.
PB
Since people in shock or panic do not act rationally you could have a death sentence for taking bags with you and some people would still do it . So on top of mandatory changes to stupid policies and marketing to incentivise taking big bags on board lets have the usually last regulators mandate no carry-ons above a certain size and NO charging for hold baggage except traditional excess charges.
Couple that to improved safety briefings to de emphasise ditching (sorry -landing on water ) and prioritise on land evacs and not taking baggage etc mirrored in safety card or seat back slogans. ND finally crew evac training where I think they are dead right to yell at pax to 'bully' them into acting and moving to just ad Take no bags Take no bags. And I bet you would get a massive improvement -and it costs largely nothing and avoids the idea of prosecuting people who can just claim that
1)I was frightened and panicked
2 ) No one told me not to-or I didn't hear them.
PB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that this flight was outbound so immigration may have been less of an issue, but either way those pax aren't going anywhere until passports are returned or replaced, whilst those who took their bags could take another flight out immediately if they needed to.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It surprises me that only 4 kts crosswind has that effect on the direction of fire. Still wondering if there is something like a fuelspray directing the flames at the hull.
HPC disintegration detected
from the NTSB investigative update as posted here by fokkerjet
Here is a link to a detailed diagram of a GE90. The variant is the 115, so some details and proportions will differ from the accident flight. But nonprofessionals unfamiliar with basic turbofan structure designations may find it helpful.
http://lyle.smu.edu/propulsion/Pages.../turbofan2.jpe
As lomapaseo suggested above, I think the biggest outstanding question is how this failure resulted in the release of so much fuel.
...
• Initial examination of the left engine revealed multiple breaches of the engine case in the area around the high pressure compressor.
• Examination of the material recovered from runway found several pieces of the high pressure compressor spool (approximately 7-8 inches in length).
...
• Initial examination of the left engine revealed multiple breaches of the engine case in the area around the high pressure compressor.
• Examination of the material recovered from runway found several pieces of the high pressure compressor spool (approximately 7-8 inches in length).
...
http://lyle.smu.edu/propulsion/Pages.../turbofan2.jpe
As lomapaseo suggested above, I think the biggest outstanding question is how this failure resulted in the release of so much fuel.
Last edited by archae86; 10th Sep 2015 at 20:09. Reason: edited to include permalink to fokkerjet's post
I'm not sure if it's been picked up on this thread or in the media, but that calm an authoritative voice on the radio is almost certainly not that of the captain.
There's a video floating around of the flight crew being ambushed by a news crew while climbing into a taxi. The SFO's accent seems familiar......
There's a video floating around of the flight crew being ambushed by a news crew while climbing into a taxi. The SFO's accent seems familiar......
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest NTSB initial findings are at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-relea...R20150910.aspx
It might be worth checking the NTSB website for further news as this is from the investigators themselves, and is not speculation.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-relea...R20150910.aspx
It might be worth checking the NTSB website for further news as this is from the investigators themselves, and is not speculation.
that calm an authoritative voice on the radio is almost certainly not that of the captain.
If done according to script:
The Non-handler (so that could have been either the captain or the co-pilot) should have done the "stopping" call ...
The co-pilot should have made the "mayday" call.
The captain should have made the call to ATC that they were evacuating
That said the captain can operate outside the SOPs if he/she feels fit and I think they did ***** well to get them all done (probably a sim check "exceed" just for that ), I'm not fussed who did what on the R/T to be honest.
Last edited by wiggy; 10th Sep 2015 at 20:40.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 500
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIO is a 275tonne MTOW model, one of only four. Whilst it was a light load, LAS is high and hot - presumably the 38*C/39*C temperature at time of incident meant a take-off quite close if not at full thrust.