Tow truck on fire
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That depends. That truck was LH's as well.
BTW: Six people were injured after smoke inhalation.
BTW: Six people were injured after smoke inhalation.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to suggest TurtleWax , until I saw picture at post #8.
Does anyone know how long it took for the fire brigade, that looks a tad more then 90 sec burn time.
I am guessing 5 min from start to extinguished ?
Sad to see such a nice AC go, but the MoneyMen loves it. no doubt.
Does anyone know how long it took for the fire brigade, that looks a tad more then 90 sec burn time.
I am guessing 5 min from start to extinguished ?
Sad to see such a nice AC go, but the MoneyMen loves it. no doubt.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Leftside
Age: 62
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a practical thought. Would this count as a hull-loss? Pretty rotten to get a hull-loss in the statistics because of this.
And in that direction, if it's not a hull-loss in that sense, does anyone know the criteria? I'd say it's not the same thing (in the statistics for safe airline) to have an aircraft destroyed in an accident during operation or destroyed by something like this incident, or even damaged beyond repair at night by vandals.
And in that direction, if it's not a hull-loss in that sense, does anyone know the criteria? I'd say it's not the same thing (in the statistics for safe airline) to have an aircraft destroyed in an accident during operation or destroyed by something like this incident, or even damaged beyond repair at night by vandals.
Just a practical thought. Would this count as a hull-loss? Pretty rotten to get a hull-loss in the statistics because of this.
It's usually important to insurance carriers.
and safety studies usually set things like this aside that don't threaten the users
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Watford
Age: 70
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had an O2 fire on an Omani Air Force BAC 1-11 in around 1980,burnt out around the same area as this.A working party was despatched from Hurn & the wings & tail removed.The whole lot was shipped back to Bournemouth & re-inserted on the production line for a new front end to be built on.
Can't see the same happening here.
Can't see the same happening here.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a practical thought. Would this count as a hull-loss? Pretty rotten to get a hull-loss in the statistics because of this.
And in that direction, if it's not a hull-loss in that sense, does anyone know the criteria? I'd say it's not the same thing (in the statistics for safe airline) to have an aircraft destroyed in an accident during operation or destroyed by something like this incident, or even damaged beyond repair at night by vandals.
And in that direction, if it's not a hull-loss in that sense, does anyone know the criteria? I'd say it's not the same thing (in the statistics for safe airline) to have an aircraft destroyed in an accident during operation or destroyed by something like this incident, or even damaged beyond repair at night by vandals.
Hull losses are also a financial decision rather than an extent-of-damage indicator - airlines can (and do...) game the stats, if they want to, by paying to repair aircraft that are actually uneconomical to repair. Equally, the odds of a write off depend on how old the airframe is, be pretty rotten to get a hull loss purely because your new a/c went tech and you had to take the much older spare, wouldn't it?
There are many other problems with "hull loss" as a classification. How do you classify crashes on test flights for instance? How about crashes when showing off (badly) at airshows? How do you handle Malaysian, for instance? Two 777 hull losses, but MH17 is being excluded from some safety stats (I believe) because it was shot down, a terrorist act, not an accident (how, by what, or by whom is disputed, by one country at least), however MH370 is included, despite the fact that it also has a disputed cause and might have been a terrorist act, or a fire, or <insert favourite conspiracy theory here>.
Hull losses are just not that much use for "safe airline" stats, there are generally so few of them that you can decide what you want to conclude, collect your stats, analyse each incident and pretty much pick an exclusion criteria that is "fair" and will deliver the conclusion you wanted.
Two 777 hull losses, but MH17 is being excluded from some safety stats (I believe) because it was shot down, a terrorist act, not an accident (how, by what, or by whom is disputed, by one country at least), however MH370 is included, despite the fact that it also has a disputed cause and might have been a terrorist act, or a fire, or <insert favourite conspiracy theory here>.
Safety stats routinely exclude "acts of war" - which MH17 clearly was (granted there is still some debate on the who, there is no question about the 'what'). Similarly, hijacking are routinely excluded. MH 370 is included simply because a cause hasn't been established - if and when a cause is established then it might be excluded (depending of course on what the cause turn out to be).
Flight test accidents are a bit different - in-flight shutdown rate definitions specifically exclude shutdowns done for testing or flight training purposes, but actual crashes during flight test are never intentional. I would think that if something crashed while operating on an experimental ticket would be excluded (by definition, operating on an experimental ticket means a non-certified configuration) but I don't really know.
Interesting you say MH17 is discounted as it was an act of war. A significant number of airlines were actively avoiding that area when it happened due to risk assessing the political situation, shouldn’t they be rewarded for proactive safety?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but MH17 is being excluded from some safety stats (I believe) because it was shot down, a terrorist act, not an accident (how, by what, or by whom is disputed, by one country at least), however MH370 is included, despite the fact that it also has a disputed cause and might have been a terrorist act, or a fire, or <insert favourite conspiracy theory here>.
In the case of MH370, it is fair to have all kinds of theories because that's what they are: theories. Very little actual evidence exists.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Västerås
Age: 44
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts