BA 777 on fire in Las Vegas
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spooky 2
Would not be surprised if the local TV news stations follow the progress of this repair on a weekly basis. Could be both educational and interesting as well.
Would not be surprised if the local TV news stations follow the progress of this repair on a weekly basis. Could be both educational and interesting as well.
Boeing Recovery
It is amazing what the Boeing Recovery team can achieve!! September 1993,
Air France B747-400 F-GITA ran off the runway in Tahiti (FAAA),front half in the water,back half on dry land,(Ditching or Ground Evac??or both!) The Boeing boys arrived, dragged the aircraft back onto hard stand,built a full canvas hangar around it,replaced most of the front end and other assorted systems and parts and it then flew out!! Top Job!!
Air France B747-400 F-GITA ran off the runway in Tahiti (FAAA),front half in the water,back half on dry land,(Ditching or Ground Evac??or both!) The Boeing boys arrived, dragged the aircraft back onto hard stand,built a full canvas hangar around it,replaced most of the front end and other assorted systems and parts and it then flew out!! Top Job!!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you think the Boeing engineers have done a damage assessment yet?? I'm not a structures engineer but I really didn't see so much damage that it could not be repaired. Now the economics of the repair may be a different story on this older airframe. You have to assume that the pros have looked this over pretty well and if two and one-half months is all it will take it must not be to overwhelming.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Hull Insurance would normally cover the whole aircraft including the engines. If a spare engine is fitted (ie one that doesn't belong to the aircraft, be that leased in or originally fitted to another aircraft) then usually the agreed value of the aircraft will be increased to take that into account.
Whilst mechanical failure of the engine is unlikely to be covered, that really only makes reference to the component that failed, the resultant damage would be covered. The issue with engines of course is there will always be betterment when rebuilding it, because some items have to be replaced during strip down and rebuild and others it would be silly to rebuild without refurbing. Thus, the return to full hours will result in an uninsured cost probably equivilent to a full overhaul, it may thus be cheaper not to overhaul but to buy a serivceable second hand engine. BA has the advantage that most of their aircraft are owned, so potentially no lossor will need to be involved in that decision.
Either way, with a reported agreed value of $30m, and a customary Constructive Total Loss amount of 60% of the agreed value, there's not much money to play with since the claim will easily get to $18m. There is always the ability to do some negotiating with the loss adjusters and insurers on all of the numbers except the agreed value and deductible. I am sure IAG will do whatever works best for them, remembering to get another aircraft that will most likely be different (not sure how much spec you can change on the 777, but I know for 737 there's differing avionics, brakes, galleys etc) then have to refit entire cabin to work with BA config, all of which will cost BA several $million it might be worth them just footing some of the bill to get this one flying again for another 6 or 7 years rather than accepting a total loss and be one aircraft down
Whilst mechanical failure of the engine is unlikely to be covered, that really only makes reference to the component that failed, the resultant damage would be covered. The issue with engines of course is there will always be betterment when rebuilding it, because some items have to be replaced during strip down and rebuild and others it would be silly to rebuild without refurbing. Thus, the return to full hours will result in an uninsured cost probably equivilent to a full overhaul, it may thus be cheaper not to overhaul but to buy a serivceable second hand engine. BA has the advantage that most of their aircraft are owned, so potentially no lossor will need to be involved in that decision.
Either way, with a reported agreed value of $30m, and a customary Constructive Total Loss amount of 60% of the agreed value, there's not much money to play with since the claim will easily get to $18m. There is always the ability to do some negotiating with the loss adjusters and insurers on all of the numbers except the agreed value and deductible. I am sure IAG will do whatever works best for them, remembering to get another aircraft that will most likely be different (not sure how much spec you can change on the 777, but I know for 737 there's differing avionics, brakes, galleys etc) then have to refit entire cabin to work with BA config, all of which will cost BA several $million it might be worth them just footing some of the bill to get this one flying again for another 6 or 7 years rather than accepting a total loss and be one aircraft down
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peekay wrote....
Again this is where your description is not correct. An engine that's attached to the aircraft is part of the aircraft's hull insurance "Agreed Value" and is not deducted from economic repair calculations, even if the cause of the accident/incident is mechanical failure of the engine.
I think you may be misinterpreting the mechanical "breakdown or failure" exclusions that's common in policies. The usual wording for this exclusion is "due and confined to (mechanical or other failure)".
The "confined to" part is important. If an engine fails on taxi and the engine simply shuts down -- this is considered a mechanical issue "confined to" the engine and is not covered by insurance.
But if the same engine fails on taxi and burns down the entire plane -- this is not a confined mechanical issue and insurance will provide full "Agreed Value" coverage.
On turbine aircraft there is usually a similar exclusion for engine hot starts. If you screw up a start and heat damage the engine, vanilla insurance of course won't cover it.
I will try and say it again! If this aircraft is going to be repaired, the calculations will exclude the engine as the engine is likely to be excluded by policy conditions, due to it having suffered a mechanical breakdown! If the resultant damage caused to the aircraft means the costs to repair the aircraft to exceed 60-70%, it will deemed a write off and the claim paid at the Agreed Value.
For example (purely as a projection);
Fuselage repair estimate (parts and labour) - US$10 million
Parking, temporarary hangar etc - US$1 million
Ferry flight back to LHR - US$ 100,000
New pylon and associated wiring - US$2 million
Wing repairs - US$2 million
Total estimated repairs US$15.1 million
Therefore economic to repair at just over 50% of aircraft's agreed value (say value of US$30 million)
Where does the engine come into this? Who is going to pay for the engine to be repaired/ overhauled? Answer please?
However if the above figures added up to say US$25 million, then the claim would be paid as a write off at the Agreed Value (say US$30 million).
If, as you say, the engine costs are covered in this particluar event, it is already clearly a write off as you can add anything up to US$10 million to the above repair number. I say it again, IF THIS AIRCRAFT IS REPAIRED AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING WHETHER IT IS ECONOMIC TO REPAIR, THE ENGINE REPAIR COSTS WILL NOT BE PAID FOR BY INSURERS AS IT HAS SUFFERED A MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN! THE RESULTANT (AIRFRAME) DAMAGE IS COVERED!
Again this is where your description is not correct. An engine that's attached to the aircraft is part of the aircraft's hull insurance "Agreed Value" and is not deducted from economic repair calculations, even if the cause of the accident/incident is mechanical failure of the engine.
I think you may be misinterpreting the mechanical "breakdown or failure" exclusions that's common in policies. The usual wording for this exclusion is "due and confined to (mechanical or other failure)".
The "confined to" part is important. If an engine fails on taxi and the engine simply shuts down -- this is considered a mechanical issue "confined to" the engine and is not covered by insurance.
But if the same engine fails on taxi and burns down the entire plane -- this is not a confined mechanical issue and insurance will provide full "Agreed Value" coverage.
On turbine aircraft there is usually a similar exclusion for engine hot starts. If you screw up a start and heat damage the engine, vanilla insurance of course won't cover it.
I will try and say it again! If this aircraft is going to be repaired, the calculations will exclude the engine as the engine is likely to be excluded by policy conditions, due to it having suffered a mechanical breakdown! If the resultant damage caused to the aircraft means the costs to repair the aircraft to exceed 60-70%, it will deemed a write off and the claim paid at the Agreed Value.
For example (purely as a projection);
Fuselage repair estimate (parts and labour) - US$10 million
Parking, temporarary hangar etc - US$1 million
Ferry flight back to LHR - US$ 100,000
New pylon and associated wiring - US$2 million
Wing repairs - US$2 million
Total estimated repairs US$15.1 million
Therefore economic to repair at just over 50% of aircraft's agreed value (say value of US$30 million)
Where does the engine come into this? Who is going to pay for the engine to be repaired/ overhauled? Answer please?
However if the above figures added up to say US$25 million, then the claim would be paid as a write off at the Agreed Value (say US$30 million).
If, as you say, the engine costs are covered in this particluar event, it is already clearly a write off as you can add anything up to US$10 million to the above repair number. I say it again, IF THIS AIRCRAFT IS REPAIRED AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING WHETHER IT IS ECONOMIC TO REPAIR, THE ENGINE REPAIR COSTS WILL NOT BE PAID FOR BY INSURERS AS IT HAS SUFFERED A MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN! THE RESULTANT (AIRFRAME) DAMAGE IS COVERED!
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
$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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Under the Bovingdon hold
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)!
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)!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)!
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)!
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Sure you can switch the CACs off, both of them,
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volume:
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.
You probably don´t want to have the electric load during takeoff run either. Just like with packless takeoffs on conventional aircraft.
(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).
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).