Another motivation for the punters to carry on as much as possible is the tendency, to put it mildly, for items in checked luggage to go missing.

Now I am sure that everyone who handles the checked bag is of the utmost probity, but with the security services having free access to the bags...

I have not had anything lifted from checked bags, but I have spoken with many who have. Are all their claims accurate? Not sure but I see no reason not to believe them. Perhaps others could lend some insight into whether this is a real problem or not.

My own profession was medical, though an amateur interest in flying. I found over the years that though we docs are frequently a rude and condescending lot, when there is a serious emergency, or perhaps a surgical case goes unexpectedly difficult, the professional in us takes over. A calm demeanor, and willingness to do what is necessary in cooperation with everyone else involved usually leads to the best outcome.

I'm pleased to see that you professional pilot folks have that same sort of ingrained mindset. It serves you well when it's needed, and the rest of us also.

Isn't that the true definition of "professional" in whatever field of endeavor?

Thanks Megaton. I suppose it was the media concentrating on just one person that got to me - not to detract from that person whatsoever, but it was a team effort from all employees on that aircraft and boy what a 'team'. I sincerely hope they will all be recognised as such in the days to come.

The still photograph in post #3 and the video in #10 both appear to show the main seat of the fire as being on the ground between the port engine and the fuselage. Notice that the fire engines appear to direct their first spaays onto the ground, rather than onto the wing or engine - they are only attacked later. This suggests that whatever emerged from the side of the engine ruptured fuel pipework or penetrated a tank. Since later pictures do not show any obvious outflow of fuel, it seems likely that thw wing tank is intact and the fuel was escaping from pipework downstream from an operating shutoff valve.

Perhaps if the failure had occurred a few seconds later, after V1, the damage would have been less, withe fire extinguishing itself in the air through lack of fuel.

quite a few images here, cant figure if it has been posted yet..

Images of British Airways jet that caught fire in Vegas seems to show engine EXPLODED | Daily Mail Online

Pilot makes quite the fashion statement?!?!

CNN reporting possible fire suppression system failure
 

British Airways fire: Source cites fire suppression - CNN.com

"The British Airways jet's fire indication light did come on at some point, the source close to the investigation said. And the plane did have fire suppression equipment that was deployed, but it didn't extinguish the fire.

Investigators are looking into a few possibilities such as whether or not the fire suppression equipment worked properly or whether a fuel line ruptured, causing the fire to spread."

Some pictures here that lend themselves to photo-enhancement

I see no signs of shrapnel damage. As some said much earlier in this thread it doesn't look like an uncontained disk rotor. Nor do I see signs of extreme pressure release (some call this an explosion). Instead the pictures of the externals of the engine pod and wing go hand in hand with a persistent ground pool fire.

The closest I have seen to this is and old-fashion gear box fire on the bottom of an engine that remained persistent even to the point where on ground fire services had to wait for it to burn itself out.

The source of the pool fire in this event will be most interesting.

I recently flew EWR-LHR-EWR return in the same GE90 powered 777 model as G-VIIO, and since the implementation of the new carry-on regulations. My roll-along went in the overhead, and my smaller bag for my laptop, which also included some medications, toiletries, wallet, passport, etc, was given a yellow label saying handbag/laptop bag, and this bag must be placed under the seat in front of you. I have no disagreement at all with all the arguments about leaving cabin baggage with wheels, indeed everything placed in the overheads, right there in the overheads in the event of an evacuation. However, with a light bag on the floor, I'd say it was far safer to pick it up and take it with me on leaving the plane in an emergency, rather than it remaining on the floor.

Suggestion: lock and unlock all carry-on bins remotely from the cockpit. Medicines, etc., should be carried in luggage that fits under the seat. Charging for checked baggage makes the carry-on problem worse.

Ah, one more system for the pilots to manage, which adds tens of thousands to the cost of the aircraft, and then fails to release the overhead bins when it should do at the gate. But of course the pax will be patient:rolleyes:

Yup, baggage under should be free, anything carried into the cabin should be charged by the pound, then five times the price per pound for over ten pounds.....

Thanks v much Whip, for your post of the BA SOP & memory items.

Just out of interest, does anyone know what the difference in effect on the aircraft systems would be if the procedure was:

I appreciate that confirming and methodically shutting down the correct engine is standard procedure - just wondering how the above would affect the B777?

Great job to the BA crew!

Some procedural thoughts and questions for my friends at BA and other carriers.

Over the years (and the bankruptcies and mergers ;)) I've seen the RTO procedures, like other ground ops, done different ways at different places.

Some airlines have the FO do the reject if he or she was the pilot flying and then hand the plane over to the PIC when stopped as seems the case with BA. Others have the captain always take control immediately when the reject is announced.

At BA can any of the flight deck crew members call a rejected takeoff?

At some carriers, the fault will be called, but only the captain can decide to reject.

It seems that on many U.S. carriers the current RTO callout is 'Reject'. It used to be 'Abort' but that was deemed unsuitable for these modern times. I can see where BA's 'Stop' might be preferable to 'Reject' as being less judgmental. I used to joke about this wacko PC stuff in aviation but I don't anymore. :rolleyes:

Years ago there were James Michener lists of memory items for things like engine fires and evacuation. At various carriers they were called bold face, boxed items or phase one memory items.

A friend at Air Canada claimed that he had to be able to recite by memory all of the QRH drills including non-normals like low oil pressure. It was back when AC still did their own charts so maybe he wasn't joking.

Is there still a long laundry list of memory items at BA?

The trend I've seen with both Boeing and Airbus procedures is to eliminate most memory items in recent years. And, in the U.S., I would say that procedures and checklists seem to be gradually standardizing more on the manufacturer's manuals than legacy company procedures from another aircraft decades ago.

...and extremely unsafe. I would recommend a cyberlocker account rather than gmail or yahoo. Much safer

...and you may find authorities will only accept originals.

Absolutely.

Cant trust 100% that your baggage is on the plane. I've been in that spot. Left without bags at midnight, carousel empty, everyone gone and no staff.

No clothes, documents. Just my wallet and the clothes on my back. $500 down replacing items. Chasing insurance for money 2 months down the track.

No chance ever again. From now on, what goes in the hold I can afford to lose.

Having played with brightness / contrast of the published photos to give a better view of the engine, to me it appears to be an uncontained failure affecting practically the entire engine core starting with the LPC. The fan blades all appear intact as far as one can tell so FOD unlikely.


I have an unverified figure of 4.6kg/sec as maximum fuel flow for a GE90, if a piece of shrapnel cuts the fuel line downstream from the HP fuel pump that will create a sizeable pool of fuel in the few seconds in the 8-10 seconds it took to respond to the situation and pull the cutoff lever. As observed by others, the fire appeared to be mainly from fuel coming from the engine and pooling under the wing root.

Due to human psychology, the sad fact is in the heat of the moment, a persons ipad, medicine, money, passport etc is far more important than anyone elses life. No one gives a damn....until the get out of the aircraft and they calm down and come to their senses.

BA are one of the few airlines that allow a 23kg cabin bag. Other "national carriers" allow 7kg.

Prosecuting pax for taking those what would normally be checked bags with them in an evacuation would be extremely counterproductive ad could lead to job losses as pax desert the prosecuting carrier in droves.

Took a few seconds? I doubt it. Take even a couple of seconds and the thrust asymmetry at low(ish) speed would have you have you off the runway.

I must say that it has been time consuming & painful to wade through 14 pages where 80% or so of the posts have been about cabin baggage, etc, while trying to weed out the technical information. Perhaps it is time for two separate threads?

I had cause to give a mayday call a few years ago, and that was immediately followed by Air China talking over the top of me. A few seconds later, a Cathay flight came up and said..."Everybody on this frequency, SHUT UP". Thank you Cathay.