Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

G-VIIO Las Vegas

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

G-VIIO Las Vegas

Old 5th Jul 2018, 14:21
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Why is everyone trying to HIDE the wheel? All this faffing about with did ATC tell the pilots/should the cabin crew tell the pilots/should there be camera coverage of the engines belies the point that the actual evacuation was rushed by the Captain and dangerous with an engine still running. The focus should be on what have BA done to sort this out.

The dual fire bottle firing, by-the-way, is to ensure there are no highly charged explosive bottles left around for the fire crew.
42go is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 16:18
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by 42go
Why is everyone trying to HIDE the wheel?
In what way is anything being hidden?

All this faffing about with did ATC tell the pilots/should the cabin crew tell the pilots/should there be camera coverage of the engines
Others here have criticised the captain for not gathering information promptly enough, seems he can't win.

the point that the actual evacuation was rushed by the Captain and dangerous with an engine still running.
Nobody is ignoring that/has ignored that, nobody has claimed it was a well handled evacuation.

The focus should be on what have BA done to sort this out.
That was "sorted out" - well over twelve months ago. BA have completely rewritten their version of the T7 evacuation checklist and have changed the emphasis/manner of it's handling.

Last edited by wiggy; 5th Jul 2018 at 18:38.
wiggy is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 08:47
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The “ wheel” of this incident is why the engine suffered a catastrophic failure. The captains out of sequence actions resulted in some slides being unusable. That made the situation complicated for the cabin crew ( v well handled by them ) but it had no effect on the outcome in terms of passenger survival or aircraft damage.
We can all learn from this to be methodical in our actions and cage the chimp but it’s not easy.
Decision making after an RTO is v difficult for any captain especially in LVOs.
Id be reluctant to initiate an evac with just a fire warning and would seek information from ATC,fellow pilots taxiing, cabin crew ,cameras if fitted ,DV window or sending the heavy. back.
But pilots know this should we give up Wiggy?

Last edited by sudden twang; 6th Jul 2018 at 09:16.
sudden twang is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 11:43
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
We can all learn from this to be methodical in our actions and cage the chimp but it’s not easy.
Agreed.

I'm not sure how much more blood can be extracted from this particluar stone but some people seem to keep trying,.. I can't imagine why..

Aircraft suffered catastrophic engine failure.
Aircraft stopped.
Evacuation - sub-optimal - AFAIK nobody has denied that..nevertheless...
Nobody killed, everybody gets off.
NTSB carry investigation and publish full report, warts and all.
BA carry out own analysis and changes their own procedures as a result in order to encourage people to methodical and help them cage the chimp..

TBH I'm not sure what else it is people re looking for here - maybe the captain ( long since retired BTW) tied to a post somewhere and pelted with rotten fruit for perpetuity? BA boycotted because alledgedly they are not as rigorous in some areas other carrers ( never ever got that list of ideal airlines did we??)????
.
wiggy is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 12:31
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Fact: Engines fail
Fact: Humans screw up

This person actually knows that, but would like to know, for the interest of other pilots, "what have BA done to sort this out.".

I am not sure what "in order to encourage people to methodical and help them cage the chimp.." means in BA. Tell me more, twang
42go is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 14:59
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
This person actually knows that, but would like to know, for the interest of other pilots, "what have BA done to sort this out.".
To assign this corrective action to only BA is of little value. The issue of "why" is more global than that and properly a learning for all pilots.

Personally I will await the recommendations form the NTSB to examine any unique deficiencies on BA's part or to instead make a more global recommendation
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 18:47
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Loma - "To assign this corrective action to only BA is of little value. The issue of "why" is more global than that and properly a learning for all pilots." - hence my use of the words "other pilots" and why we need to hear?

I think you have a wait on your hands if it the NTSB you are waiting for. They published their 'Final Report' at https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...Final&IType=FA which makes no recommendations - nor real comment - on the evacuation procedure.

The whole evacuation event was, to put it bluntly, a shambles. Heaven only knows what the crew were doing in the cockpit - 43 seconds from calling the evac to shutting down the right-hand engine, giving 25 seconds for passengers using 1R to be ingested into the engine.

That is where the problems lay. It may well be a company-wide training issue. I hope we will hear from the Nigels what has changed.
42go is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 19:05
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,787
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Originally Posted by 42go
I think you have a wait on your hands if it the NTSB you are waiting for. They published their 'Final Report' at https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20150908X35241&AKey=1&RType =Final&IType=FA which makes no recommendations - nor real comment - on the evacuation procedure.
NTSB investigation reports, unlike those from some other AIBs, do not contain safety recommendations.

Any that are made as a result of an investigation are published separately, and often some time after the final report is published.

So don't jump to conclusions.

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-r...h/RecTabs.aspx
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 15:37
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE=42go;10190

I am not sure what "in order to encourage people to methodical and help them cage the chimp.." means in BA. Tell me more, twang[/QUOTE]
At least quote me accurately.
Google it.
sudden twang is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 15:59
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hopefully this incident inc this thread will prompt pilots into fully understanding what they are trying to achieve prior to & during an evac. I was no ace, but was always astounded at the “flaffing” about on the simulator when similar scenarios were presented.
Granted real life is somewhat different (I did have several incidents in my career). Understanding what you need to do as second nature & communicating that to your colleague is all that is required. Communication with the cabin is part of what you are trying to achieve. (Stop check list/continue checklist (ecam) at appropriate moment gives time for cabin communication)
IcePack is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 17:45
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by de fumo in flammam
Not sure about the 777, but on some types, opening the window and sticking your head/body well outside gives a good view of wing and engines, and to some extent, the gear. In the event of a suspected external fire, I would generally do that.
On the 777 with the flight deck window closed you cannot see even a wingtip from the front seats even if you stick your head hard up against the side window and squash your nose. If you open the window and stick your body out as far as you dare you can just see a bit of outboard engine cowling but no gear. If you ever board the aircraft via steps at door 2 left wait until you are level with the left engine and then look forward to the flight deck, you cannot see any flight deck windows, you only see fuselage due to the curve at the front of the fuselage.

So for all those who felt the crew should have been more aware of the fire, it 's a great theoretical idea but not feasible. The crew can be alerted to a fire in the engine by a fire warning but a fire from spilt fuel underneath the engine is something that cannot be seen from the flight deck. They would need information from an external source like ATC or from someone in the cabin which is what happened.

As in most emergencies things do not always go perfectly. However this thread has tended to focus exclusively on the areas that could have been done better and ignored the bits that were done well and some people have therefore tried to infer it was all done badly. For those who have come out of their sim check and had the training Captain say "Well done, that was perfect, no debrief required " I salute you. I tend to live in the real world where with hindsight things could always be done a bit a better.
suninmyeyes is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2018, 10:37
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by 42go
Fact: Engines fail

I am not sure what "in order to encourage people to methodical and help them cage the chimp.." means in BA. Tell me more, twang
Look up Prof Steve Peters and The Chimp Paradox...it's not just a BA "thing".
wiggy is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2018, 12:28
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by de fumo in flammam
Not sure about the 777, but on some types, opening the window and sticking your head/body well outside gives a good view of wing and engines, and to some extent, the gear. In the event of a suspected external fire, I would generally do that.
Amazing! We got to post 120 before somebody made this suggestion! Cameras, cabin crew, ATC. Just open the window and look outside! Even if you can’t see the whole engine, you would see the smoke.
I leave it to the investigators to count seconds. They are good at that. How long did it take to get to the numbers they found?

The main error in this case was the captains evacuation order before the engines were shut down. The read and do procedure should have prevented this. He was very lucky nobody got killed because of this error.

ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2018, 14:29
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem


Amazing! We got to post 120 before somebody made this suggestion! Cameras, cabin crew, ATC. Just open the window and look outside! Even if you can’t see the whole engine, you would see the smoke.


I agree with the take a look through the open window idea. But, if only part of the engine is in view, I wouldn't want to make a big bet that not seeing any smoke guaranteed that there actually was no smoke depending on the wind conditions. And the wind is more often than not, blowing toward the tail and away from view when on the runway.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2018, 16:37
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wiggy
Look up Prof Steve Peters and The Chimp Paradox...it's not just a BA "thing".
Not just a BA thing but my God do we bang on about it ad infinitum every single CRM and LFS course.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2018, 12:37
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Age: 67
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes on 12 Posts
At face value, there was an engine failure and fire leading to an RTO and evacuation, and nobody died. "Nothing to see here..." However, if you follow the ARMS methodology, this could easily have escalated into a catastrophic outcome (major loss of life and/or hull loss).

Several slides were rendered useless by crew actions or the effects of fire, but there was sufficient redundancy for a successful evac, aided by a 55% load factor. All good news, but there is no doubt that the barriers had been eroded. What might have been the result for a full pax load? Or a bigger fire?

For me, this opens the debate again on having initial evacuation actions as a memory item. There are arguments to be had for and against, and it might not be appropriate for all types, but it does need a reasoned discussion rather than the usual PPrune/Donald Trump game of playing the man rather than the ball. And if, say, slotting the engines and fuel masters as an immediate action causes other problems on a particular type (depressurisation etc), then those are the issues that need feeding into future design considerations and certification standards.

The second issue that is worth further thought is that, at least in in lighter winds, a 5-7kt crosswind appears to be the perfect scenario for directing upwind engine-associated fires against the hull (as with the Manchester accident). So is the 'stop in a straight line' SOP for some wide-body operators sensible or is it worth revisiting in light of the G-VIIO experience?

NB, these are questions, not answers!
Fortissimo is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 20:26
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying
They need to be able to distinguish between tire/wheel/brake fires where three minutes is allowed before ARFF arrives - and uncontrolled fuel fed fires demanding immediate evacuation.
The idea that ARFF is required to be at the scene of an emergency within three minutes is one of the most commonly held incorrect beliefs among people who are familiar with aviation. A three minute response time must be demonstrated (under rather ideal conditions) as a part of airport certification.

All that ARFF has to do is respond to emergencies in a fire truck. Three minutes is generally viewed as a target response maximum but there is nothing requiring it.

14 CFR §139.319(H):

H. Response requirements.

(1) With the aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment required under this part and the number of trained personnel that will assure an effective operation, each certificate holder must -

(i) Respond to each emergency during periods of air carrier operations; and

(ii) When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate compliance with the response requirements specified in this section.

(2) The response required by paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section must achieve the following performance criteria [emphasis added]:

(i) Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft from its assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance on the movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin application of extinguishing agent.

(ii) Within 4 minutes from the time of alarm, all other required vehicles must reach the point specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section from their assigned posts and begin application of an extinguishing agent.

~~~~~~~~~

The requirement is that ARFF must respond to each emergency during periods of air carrier operations. There is no time requirement for those responses.

I bolded the part of the regulation which states the other part of the regulation that the time requirements apply to. The time requirements do not apply to (H)(1)(i), and it would be absurd if they did. (What if it's snowing? Are you going to fine or jail the fire crew?)
CharlesLindbergh is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2020, 00:46
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
After milking some money with settlements in U.S. courts the 'victims' seek further justice in the UK.

From The Evening Standard:

Three flight attendants sue BA for £110,000 over runway fire ordeal

Three British Airways flight attendants who helped passengers escape a plane on fire are suing the airline for £110,000.

Marie Dyos, Lynette Robinson and Suely Goncalves-McLoughlin helped to evacuate 170 people from a Boeing 777 when an engine burst into flames at McCarran airport in Las Vegas.

The drama unfolded as the Gatwick-bound plane accelerated along the runway for take-off, forcing the pilot to brake and order an evacuation.
The three cabin crew members say they have been left mentally scarred by the incident, being the last to exit the jet after helping passengers escape.
Marie Dyos and Lynette Robinson (Champion News) The Mayor’s and City of London court heard the three women have been left with post-traumatic stress disorder while Miss Goncalves-McLoughlin also claims her vision was damaged in the September 2015 incident.

They are now suing British Airways for damages, with Ms Robinson and Miss Goncalves-McLoughlin claiming £40,000 and Mrs Dyos seeking £30,000.

They have accused fellow crew members of being negligent by “failing to follow the engine fire checklist”, allowing 97 gallons of fuel to spill onto the runway and allegedly feed the fire.

The captain is also accused of delaying shutting down the other engine, prolonging the evacuation as two escape slides could not be used.

British Airways denies all blame, disputing that the air crew had failed to follow procedure and defending the actions of the captain.

The court heard Ms Robinson, from East Sussex, opened a door on the right of the plane but the escape chute was unusable due to the blast from the still-running right engine. She is now plagued by flashbacks and remains “anxious and hyper vigilant”, said the women’s barrister Martin Haukeland.

He said Miss Goncalves-McLoughlin, from East Sussex, suffered damage to her cornea when she also opened a door on the right of the plane. “Her eyes were exposed to high velocity particles thrown up by the still running right-hand engine,” said Mr Haukeland.

Mrs Dyos, of Horley, Surrey, has returned to work but is undergoing treatment for anxiety and struggles with PTSD symptoms, the court heard.

She claims to suffer from lasting shoulder pain due to holding closed a cupboard door to create a gangway for the passengers.

At a preliminary hearing, Lucy Wyles, for BA, pointed out that the women have already settled US lawsuits brought against the Boeing Company and GE Aviation Systems LLC in 2016 and said they should not be entitled to further compensation over the same incident.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2020, 01:34
  #139 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 73
Posts: 2,270
Received 25 Likes on 7 Posts
I wonder what Barbara Harrison would make of these 3?
ZFT is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2020, 07:57
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,787
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
It's interesting that, according to the Evening Standard, BA deny that the crew failed to follow procedure (commanding the evacuation before shutting down the live engine), despite that being one of the NTSB's findings.

Three flight attendants sue BA for £110,000 over runway fire ordeal

Presumably BA are relying on an investigation report being inadmissible in court ?
DaveReidUK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.