A picture from early in the sequence (linked from The Guardian). No slides deployed, no emergency vehicles yet, so probably just some few seconds after coming to a halt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/incomin...-airways-3.jpg

1) The left engine is clearly visible.

2) Fire is most pronounced in the wing root area.

3) Wind is blowing into the cabin.

4) Smoke is hugging the airplane all around, at the wing root level.

I sure would prefer to be in a 777 if I ever was in an incident. That plane is a mean bugger in the best sense!

A benefit of 3-up in the cockpit, rather than two?
 

Interesting quote from the captain reported by the NBC/BBC*:
Mr Henkey told NBC: "There was a loud bang and the aircraft sort of veered to the left. Because we had a third pilot he actually opened the door and went down into the cabin, saw how serious it was."
* British Airways fire pilot: 'I'm finished flying' - BBC News

For composites it is always hard to tell the difference between severe heat/fire damage and real penetration. Once the resin has burned, the fibres are hanging down in rags...
How is the fuel pipe routed on a 777? Where are the pumps located? Could this have been a major fuel system leak instead of an engine fire?
What puzzles me most is not the inboard location of the fire (fuel will run down a penetrated lower wing skin and accumulate there) but the far forward location. For sure fuel does not flow uphill... Is the nose down attitude on ground enough to have fuel running down a lower wing skin running forward inside the wing to fuselage fairing?

Most probably not, there was not enough oxygen available for that as the tanks have been well filled. Almost empty tanks may explode, not almost full ones.

Modern thrust reversers only reverse the bypass air, not the core flow. i.e. cold air that has not been used in combustion. This was not the case on the v low bypass 737 engine at MAN.

The pilot on this flight was literally one return trip away from retirement, so it's understandable that after this he's just decided "that'll do" (BBC News story).

On the topic of cabin baggage: I'm flying DUB-BOS-JAX tomorrow, returning the same way 2 weeks later. I will have my wallet and essential docs in jacket pockets. The jacket will be in the overhead locker, and if I need to evacuate, I'll grab my jacket only. I understand the "grab nothing" concept, but compared to the hassle of being stuck in a foreign country with nothing but the clothes on my back, I'll risk extra second or three it takes to grab my jacket on the way out the door. I won't be obstructing anyone else in the process.

Here's an image I don't think has been posted yet.

Are those curved marks in the charred area at the bottom damage from debris penetration?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COe-lfVUEAEThuu.jpg:large

They're slating the pax who exited with luggage on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 right now, so at least a few million people will be made aware of the issue now.

After seeing better pictures, the fan turbine blades look fully intact but the cowling is completely ruined which seemingly points to a failure within the compressor and subsequent uncontained failure.

We can draw quite a few comparisons here to the AA 767-200 that burst into flames at LAX. ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 767-223ER N330AA Los Angeles International Airport, CA (LAX)

It would be interesting if any recent engine related incidents related to surge, vibration etc had been reported on this aircraft.

Did anyone post a metar yet?
The flames and smoke were engulfing the hull and that creates the same hazards as the BA Manchester accident.
Wonder whether it was a result of (high pressure) fuel spray in the direction of the plane or a crosswind.
We are trained to consider wind direction in case of fire after a RTO and frankly it is very hard to maneuver a heavy plane on a 45m wide runway into (or away from) the wind but the pictures again show how a fire on the wing easily eats at the airplane.

Sorry, found it already on ASN. Takeoff reported to be at 1612Z so not much of a crosswind.
Still, next profcheck the wind will be on my mind more then before (when we usually get exactly the same scenario).

copy/paste from ASN (they only mixed up UTC/local):
15:56 UTC / 22:56 local time:
KLAS 082256Z 00000KT 10SM SCT130 SCT180 38/05 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP067 ACC SE T03830050
16:31 UTC / 23:31 local time:
KLAS 082331Z 34008KT 10SM FEW130 SCT180 39/05 A2981 RMK AO2 T03890050

If the industry is enthusiastically encouraging pax to keep luggage with them - reinforced by financial penalty for checking-in hold luggage - we cannot then complain when they take their full permitted quota into the cabin with them.

On the other hand, putting that baggage in the hold... will probably mean more cheap bad quality consumer Lithium batteries ending up there where they can't be stomped on when necessary. Just something that crossed my mind. Maybe the stats on this are not that strong. But the huge increase in cabin baggage (and corresponding reduction in hold check-ins) seems to be simultaneous with the increase in cheap Lithium batteries being carried by all and sundry.

cabin baggage
 

airscrew, we mustnt get into another once -in- a- blue moon knee-jerk must -do- something situ like two -pilots -on- the flight -deck. that said I am surprised nay staggered that BA allows 46kg repeat 46kg cabin baggage per adult and per child. am just wondering how you get such weight into one bag no bigger than 45x36x20 cm and another no bigger than 56x45x25 cm.

Check out pictures of the evacuation of the Twin Towers and most are carrying briefcases / handbags etc. It seems to be a natural reaction and perhaps it can't be prevented?

Whew, that was a close call, I do hope the aircraft was evacuated before the fire broke through into the cargo/underfloor area...

Many of the people evacuating there were still on their way into work so didn't stop to pick up their cases etc.

Another scenario to give to people would be Manchester. How many of the victims there would still be alive today of they had a few more seconds to get out the door? Many people died there because of smoke inhalation just seconds from the door. I am in no way saying that baggage was to blame on that one but pointing out a few seconds delay because a bozo (or 20) in front of you decide to go to the overhead to retrieve something can make all the difference.

If your that worried about your passport etc, keep them in your pocket. If you want to keep them in your jacket pocket you should make a choice. Leave the jacket on until after TO and then put it in the locker or leave it behind and get the hell off the aircraft without slowing anyone else down.

Final option for those that want to take their bags is to wait until EVERYONE else is off the plane before you go to the locker.

Whilst bean counters might like the revenue of baggage - the trend for large carry-ons started 25+ years before charging started in earnest.

Following the 1980s deregulation, carriers implemented Hub-and-Spoke. Many pax found that they made the Hub connection - but their bags did not. So they did the obvious thing and started carrying on ever more baggage.

Later, this was 'monetised' but only because the practise was already established. So the carriers did start this but not because of charging pax for baggage. History is all.

Typhoid suggested that modern reverse systems only deflect the cold bypass air. I agree However the STOP actions will require the throttles being closed and then placed in the idle reverse position. This will ready the engine for a reverse power application if needed. I suspect a combustion chamber split on the inboard side of the engine causing a fire which was diverted into the fuselage by fortunately a low power steam of fan air. They were lucky, the 9 secs to stop the a/c plus a bit of thinking time before the fuel was cut off was enough to cause such major damage.

...and to make it looking more dramatic, the use the poorly aligned picture taken by a pax in panic, cut off the ground, so it looks like the aircraft is sitting on its nose with the NLG failed...
What a load of :mad:

Most carriers only allow 7kg cabin bags. If BA really does allow 23kg it should be passengers suing BA for endangering the pax, not the other way round.

Its here in black and white: Hand baggage allowances | Baggage essentials | British Airways