BA 747 Engine Fire
 

An engine fire forced a British Airways jet to return to John F. Kennedy International Airport shortly after taking off Thursday night.

One of the four engines on the London-bound Boeing 747
ignited shortly after its 11:20 p.m. departure, said John
McCarthy, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey.

The plane landed safely and no one was injured, he said,
and the pilot extinguished the fire.

Approximately 300 passengers were on Flight 116, which was
headed to Heathrow Airport, McCarthy said.

The passengers and crew were scheduled to take another
flight Friday morning.

Hmmm, considering past big airways modus operandi, I'm surprised they didn't just keep going on with three...:}

How about a little credit guys.

ANY fire on board is a much more serious matter than any precationary shut down etc.

The flight was airbourne at 0423z and on the ground again at 0441z!
Fairly good going I'd say, lets not turn this into another have a go at BA thread.

All the best.

411- that was a very sad and cheap swipe at fellow professional aviators. You, probably more than the vast majority, know that a fire warning is of a completely different degree and they (again) did absolutely the right thing under the circumstances. If you want to reopen that enormous thread, why not tack your facetious comments onto the end of it? They too did the right thing, and I stand by that.

Sounds like a job well done, but this forum is too often full of cheap shots. 411A ..... how predictable you are.

Oh come on guys, I know y'all love to bash 411A, but I thought that was funny! A first class professional job was done and all got down safely. A little humour after the event is all part and parcel of the aviation business. Bet the BA crew made a few cracks of their own in the bar afterwards.

Nothing like cheap BA bashing - absolutely bl**dy shameful.

Good job by the aviators in question for getting the plane on the ground so quickly after the problem.

Jordan

Sounds like a good job done on a black winter night by a highly professional crew to me.

Considering the journalistic license rampant in the mainstream press, do we know in fact if the crew in fact had a fire warning? Ten months ago the BA744 out of LAX did not, even though fireballs (typical of a stall/surge) were evident to the pax.

It's a distinction worth knowing.

There I go, just being redundant again... :ugh:

C'mon guys, stop bashing 411A.

There must be some humor in this forum, otherwise I could never bear it!

It didn't catch fire.......but the turbine is wrecked.

Must have been high EGT then ! :)

Congratulations guys and girls on a job done very well:ok:

So what was it, a genuine fire, turbine overheat warning, false warning?

FAA (well JFK TWR anyway) seem to think it was a fire:

As mere SLF, a good job well done by the Captain.
Does Maximum Landing Weight not influence how long it is before the aircraft can land?
I would have thought 20-30 mins wouldn't give them enough time to jettison the required amount of fuel?

Good job guys and girls.

Let's give some credit where it's due. Whatever the cause was, the crew had to return with a presumably heavy a/c on a dark winter night, with the loss of an engine.

They did ok in my book.

Navy man- if your ass is on fire, max landing weight assumes a sort of irrelevance, if you see what I mean. Anyway, a JFK-LHR is really a short flight for the 747- like less than half long range. It's quite possible the aircraft was already under max landing weight anyway.

Unless they were tanking. You know the price of gas in the UK?

747-400 (in common with most a/c) is certified to land up to MTOW in an emergency.

Engine fire or smoke in cabin are good examples of when to forget the weight and land ASAP (runway length permitting).

Overweight landing inspection is mandatory, but often reveals no problems (casting mind back to a 767-300 which landed at Manchester about 30,000kg over MLW a few years back with smoke in cabin after t/o, and was on its way to sunny Florida again just a few hours later).

JFK Tower could see flames or "What appeared to be flames" coming out of the engine on the left hand side. Jetblue aircraft taxiing on the ground commented "that engine could possibly burn off".

Crew made one orbit to get sorted after engine shut-down and fire extinguishment, and made an ILS approach to 31L.

Very, very profesional as far as the ATC chit chat goes.

Take Off Weight for a JFK-LHR usually about 300t. Max Landing Weight 285t (ish). A quick circuit and you are not going to be far off that figure. You may also feel that it is more important to land than hang around.

Despite the fuel depot explosion, JFK is not currently a BA tankering station for the 744.

The boys done good!

T'bug:ok:

Sounds like a good job by the crew, my hat is off to them.

Would have thought BA longhaul on the shorter flights will be doing the ferry fuel job into LHR as that is the cheapest way of doing it.

What was the take-off runway?
Were ATC helpful (for a change)?
Just kidding 411.....

Firstly, well done to the crew - for what is all in a days work!!

I just heard the liveatc online and another a/c reports seeing the flames 5 minutes after the event - the crew were very carm throughout....

Secondly, before the BA safety bashing starts - bearing in mind that BA operates 57 744, and is the largest operator of the type, with 228 on wing RB211, not including the 752/763 RR - i think that speaks for its self....

Question - in the 16mins, in the air is there time to use the fuel jettison on the opposite wing to the engine fire - or is this too dangerous?

Link to Liveatc - http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kjfk...29-05-2300.mp3 (cleared for t/off 23mins into recording). *non commercial site.

What's this hangup with fuel jettison? Think about it- with a fire warning, are you going to stooge around dumping 2 tonnes/minute or is it better to get down without delay? They were very likely below max landing weight anyway. It is not an issue!

Think they could remove fuel from one nozzle if they wanted, but belive balance of fuel remaining requires attention.

Would guess if flames reported, crew may not dump fuel.

Aircraft landing heavy is Ok me thinks.

Did they serve pre landing drinks to the pass, me thinks not.

Sounds like the crew operated by the numbers, easy to say, not always easy to do.

As always, good pilots and training often get super results, well done to all.

A 747 can land at max takeoff weight, and if it's a normal landing there will be no damage at all.
15 tonnes over is virtually nothing at all to be worried about - Certainly not even to be a consideration if the aeroplane is on fire.

Professionals
 

The said aircraft landed with 285 tons (tonnes) of fuel and 302 "people" on board. The microphones or the radio on Speedbird one sixteen were obviously much better by a long way than every other aircraft around at the time.

And why were the pilots so calm and collected? Did they automatically switch into "This is just an excersize in a simulator" mode?

I am awestruck! "like to confirm emergency services will be available but this should be a normal landing...."

Unreal.......

V-I

Highly doubt that they landed with 285 tonnes of fuel on board, as the QOTS on carries 173 tonnes when full;)

Suspect that you meant or misheard that it landed at 285 tonnes which is max landing weight.

Umm...
 

When asked the amount of fuel the radio operator replied 285 tons

When asked the numper of people the radio operator replied 302.

When asked did that include crew, the radio operator said I will have to get back to you.

If what you say about "Suspect that you meant or misheard that it landed at 285 tonnes" is correct the the guy on the radio was still calm and collected but he was not answering the ATC question correctly.

http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kjfk...29-05-2330.mp3

Listen from 6:50 onwards.....

Edited to add the ATC link

***WARNING***
 

In order to try and preserve some sense of debate, I have allowed 411A his one little 'dig'. It is to be expected, as he is applying his own personal experience which must be several decades out of date by now. What I don't need on here is all the Trolls who take the bait and flood the thread with useless dialogue about how incandescent with rage they are at his observations.

Learn to live with it and if you are so uncontrollably outraged, count to ten and then play the ball, not the player! :rolleyes: It is most likely to be bad for your health (mental and coronary) if I keep deleting your posts which you have undoubtedly spent time constructing because it is irrelevant to the thread topic.

On another note, I would again like to appeal to all non-airline pilots and assorted enthusiasts to refrain from making statements on this and other threads where operational and technical matters are being discussed. Questions are fine but comments that are so obviously made by someone who has little or no idea about 'the job' serve only to ridicule the poster and more often than not, lead to digression from the original topic. One example (chosen only because it is the most recent but there are many more) is these comments as made a few posts back:In other words, if you think, then you don't know and so you should be asking a question rather than trying to add in commentary to a thread that is of interest to all airline pilots, especially those that actually operate the same aircraft type as involved in this incident.

So, please stick to the topic otherwise your efforts may be wasted.

ATC asked the crew for their fuel remaining "in pounds", a figure that would not be readily available. As this was at a time of very high workload (turning onto the localiser at 2000ft), I suspect that the guy just gave them the landing weight as that would be the figure that was uppermost in his mind.
I gather that the entire crew, both flight crew and cabin crew, did a great job.

Airclues

I couldn't agree more with what Danny has just posted.

The guys were faced with an emergency at or soon after rotation from 31L at Kennedy, which in itself is a relatively non-normal departure, requiring a left turn across Jamaica Bay almost immediately after becoming airborne. At this point, they were suddenly thrust into a quite different routine from that they were expecting by the surge or fire which occurred on the left side. At this stage we don't know much more except that the ATC exchanges are calm and efficient, indicating the likelihood of a similarly methodical approach to the problem within the flight deck itself. Well done to them, I say.

The short flight was sufficient to deal with the initial and secondary actions of the engine fire, to assess the situation with regard to the inevitable return, to configure the aircraft for such a return (at or around max landing weight), to set up the approach and to brief the cabin crew and passengers accordingly. The exchanges with ATC that I have heard were concise and efficient and JFK ATC were, as far as I could hear, helpful. The guys on the flight deck certainly had their hands full.

The matter of the question by ATC of the total number on board and the fuel remaining (in pounds) has been raised. Yes, the responses were incomplete - the fuel figure replied was probably the landing weight (metric tonnes) and I don't think it was clarified whether the total on board figure included the crew. However, the real question surely is whether ATC were right to be asking these details at what was probably a very busy and critical stage of the approach, as they were being vectored towards the localiser for their 31L approach. The Flight Plan (held by ATC) would clearly show the total on board and the fuel on board would have been that required for LHR, or about 7-8 hrs endurance (i.e. about half tanks). I don't believe there was much benefit to be gained from ATC asking these questions at this stage of the flight - full emergency services would be in attendance for the landing anyway.

In any event, these criticisms are minor. All in all, it was a successful operation and those involved - especially the crew - should be congratulated for achieving an excellent and thoroughly professional result.

Well done!

So far I've heard no confirmation that there indeed was an engine fire requiring the crew to complete an engine fire drill and emergency return.

The only fire reports are from those on the ground and likely associated with an engine surge recoverable by shutting off the fuel.

One way of looking at this is from the crews standpoint of what displays did they have and considering the Tower call how to react accordingly.

So to me all the comments from those of us not aboard about the level of emergency and expected reactions from the crew are postulations or what ifs.

<<<
rotation from 31L at Kennedy, which in itself is a relatively non-normal departure
>>>

Not really - I've taken off from JFK 100 or so times over many years, and I reckon 31L was used on about 50-60% of those departures.

But a turn at 500ft after departure is relatively non-normal.

If it was 31L, then normal procedure is to turn left at 300'. It is an exceptional requirement for that runway for noise reasons.

Just a few observations on some comments already posted:-
Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual B747-400 states " overweight landings may be accomplished by using normal landing procedures and techniques" - an engine out landing does not incur any extra landing distance.
If an engine fire is reported to the crew, who may not be in receipt of a warning in the cockpit, then a quick return and overweight landing may be desirable, rather than delay the approach for fuel-jettisoning.
I am not aware of any ATC flight plan containing such last-minute information such as fuel on board and persons on board. Some airports do request the total pax and crew on board when requesting start clearance, but I have never been asked for fuel on board even after declaring a Mayday for engine-fire after departure. TOB and dangerous goods-yes.
Well done to the crew-quick decision-making and obviously good CRM and co-operation from JFK ATC.

Delaying Landing to Dump Fuel
 

Begging Danny's indulgence:

The 1998 SR111 Accident Report from TSB Canada shows how little time may be available in case of fire.

In this case, the report shows that the fire was progressing too rapidly to make a landing at an available airport. Since then the emphasis has been to get it on the ground ASAP whatever the weight.