To people saying you are looking at the forward hold in the pictures, you are not.
You are looking at the composite wing to body fairings, or what is left of them.

Well for a wee comparison...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/...8c2c48a0e3.jpg

looking at that photo - likely structural integrity lost in crucial area of airframe/wing fixing zone

I'm no engineer and I'm happy to be schooled by some professionals

but, I'd speculate a write off by Mr Airline boss and the Loss adjuster??

First of all well done everyone involved. :ok:
I'm curious as to why you think a special pouch would be necessary. I have a small 10 x 15cms(approx.) very slim bag/pouch which I hang around my neck. It's just big enough to hold my passport and credit card and small enough to drop inside my blouse/Tshirt/jumper so that it wouldn't become snagged in an emergency. I bought it in ESheds market in Fremantle but similar things are available in plenty of other locations.

I find it very hard to understand the stupidity of people who think that criminal prosecutions of pax who evacuate with luggage would change people's behavior in a future evacuation.

Many pax don't even watch the safety demonstration, yet you think they are going to read, study and inwardly digest obscure legal decisions in a foreign country which would have happened long before. And that they will stop and remember all of that in the middle of a life threatening crisis. Laughable.

What do we make of the damage on the starboard side visible in the picture in post 14. Is that just smoke/fire damage to the skin of the fuselage at the wing root, or is that possibly mechanical damage? Could the port engine have thrown something that has "made a bit of a mess" on the port side but then gone right though the fuselage just at the forward wing root? Clearly not the front fan, and that must imply it could not have been any complete turbine disc.

Any pictures on the inboard side of the port engine?

a 16 year aircraft with extensive fire damage in the center part like this one will not get a repair.

btw: 3rd operational hull loss for BA in 7 years (2nd 777), but NONE of them was fatal !

Blades need to be contained in the event of a seperation anywhere through the engine including turbine, however if its a wheel failure that's generating energy at TO power that's pretty much impossible to contain (per Sioux City DC-10 and that was at cruise setting). Failure risk mitigation comes down to design, manufacturing and operating stats which are now pretty phenomenal for big turbines. Trend now is to go for blisks to avoid the trad fir tree root connection but now you have one single lump of very high energy. I'm sure the regulators do the maths.

It would appear the failure was uncontained to a certain degree given the cowl and ancilliaries damage but I haven't seen images to determine whether it blew through the wing. The WTB fairing damage is clearly heat rather than penetration, presumably the fuel source was damaged fuel system at the point of exit for whatever exited. The positioning you can see does initially appear to be relatively forward suggesting IP or HP compressor rather than turbine.

And both the 777 losses were as a result of engine issues in either the final or first stages of flight

a close to 17 year old well used 777, that is owned outright by the airline (so no lessor to pressure) with substantial heat damage, would not be close to economically repairable.

The engine alone is probably $20m for a suitable second hand example (although arguably the part that failed is not covered by insurance and there would be considerable betterment in a fresh out of check engine) the rest of the damage will mean BA is alas a 777 down in their fleet for some time.

There will however be a good amount of salvage, BA are likely to do a deal on that depending upon which interior this 777 has (update, it has an old interior so probably of little value to anyone), otherwise BA will see their money from insurers in the next week and the loss adjusters will go off and get offers for the remaining salvage.

Not really.

Fuel starvation is not really an engine issue.

cabin luggage
 

I don't normally post on here, but I have to say I seriously can't believe how blinkered some of you condoning pax taking their luggage off with them.

For those who say they would have done the same (ie. taking luggage off), or it's ok to try grab your hand luggage, why don't you imagine for a moment being a passenger in a burning aircraft in the area where the fire is, in desperation trying to get off and away from the fire and smoke, but ahead of you, hindering your escape, are selfish individuals (who are nearer exits away from the fire and fumes - and consequently escape is more likely assured) blocking these escape routes standing in the way taking their possessions out of the overhead lockers. I would be curious to know how many of those pax sitting in the area of the fire stopped to take their hand luggage en route to the evacuation slides?

How would you feel if it were one of your loved ones in this situation and did not make it due to not evacuating quickly enough? It only takes the photo posted above to realise how quickly the fire must have escalated and therefore how lucky those pax were sitting in this area that they made it out in one piece with no serious injuries / fatalities.

When evacuation is as a result of fire and / or smoke, forget passports, medication, valuables. It's about simply getting out alive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply deluded and selfish in my opinion.

I'd like to see minimal cabin baggage implemented - you want to see how quickly 90 North Sea bears can be loaded and unloaded from a 146 with no cabin baggage when the only thing between them and the pub is the flight. Yes it's a bit tongue in cheek, but it really does show the difference between regular pax who want minimal inconvenience and normal domestic pax who want all their creature comforts with them while extracting every penny of value for their ticket price.

As for the airports encouraging multiple bags of duty free, that's another rant altogether.

Well done to all involved, good outcome to something that could have gone horribly wrong.

Tourist, to pick nits, the heat exchanger that was blocked with ice is considered to be part of the engine (i.e. a fuel/engine oil heat exchanger). So yes, it can certainly be considered an "engine problem".
I'll be curious to hear if the wing fuel tank was penetrated, or if the fire was fed purely with "engine fuel". On a 777, shutting down the engine (either with the fuel switch or the fire handle) will close the spar valve. However, the spar valve takes a few seconds to close so if the fuel line is compromised the boost pumps can push a lot of fuel out in those few seconds (plus whatever crew reaction time there was).
In response to a previous post regarding containing disc failures - it simply isn't practical. There is way too much energy involved - even armor plate would be easily penetrated (while doing a rotor burst analysis on the 777, someone asked the question of "where would a 1/3 fan disc go" - the answer was "wherever it wants to":eek:).

With regard to the passengers carrying luggage off the aircraft, we see this every time there is a crash - when was the last time it has adversely affected the outcome? Of course, it does slow things down, and it does make it more likely, but when has it actually happened?

Passengers around the world will be seeing pictures of yet another 'plane crash' with a successful evacuation, and passengers taking their belongings with them.

Probably far more relevant, is that from the passenger figures published, the plane was only half full.

Some factbits
 

Flightradar24 has released their raw data, here.

The data samples suggest that take-off power was applied at around 23:12:43 UTC as the aircraft had turned onto heading 090 (presumably the actual heading of 07L?) with a speed of 20 knots.

Six seconds later it had reached 46 knots and fourteen seconds later at 23:12:57 its maximum speed of 78 knots. From there it decelerated in 9 seconds to 2 knots, its heading essentially unchanged at 086 degrees.

As a guesstimate, the fault happened somewhere at the 46 knots point and it took a few seconds before the crew was ready to cut power and hit the brakes, airplane still accelerating. That would imply alarm-to-full-stop in approx 16-20 seconds. Pretty quick reactions and decision making I'd say?

Great job by the crew all round - especially the FA at door L2. :D

Some have commented that it's a good job it didn't happen after V1 - and I agree, much better to be dealing with problems stationary on the ground. But not because of the fuselage damage that resulted.

I think that the damage to the fuselage only happened because it was stationary on the ground. They were taking off on 07L and the wind was 360 at 5. The prevailing wind was blowing the fire from the left engine directly against the fuselage. If they were airborne, the fire would be streaming aft, along, through and behind the engine. You wouldn't have the same fuselage damage, if any at all. Of course they would probably have a different set of problems to deal with, particularly if the fire was uncontained.

I'm also curious as to whether a fuel tank was ruptured. As has already been stated, when a disk fails it's an absolute lottery as to where it'll go. If ram air on a Concorde departure can't put out a fuel fire, it certainly won't on a tripler

Re luggage carrying idiots.

Hopefully either BA or the authorities can identify them and (a) prosecute them for endangering the lives of fellow passengers and crew and (b) banning them from all airlines. For life.

BA777 on fire in Las Vegas
 

Possibly a simple quick, cheap, fix might be to propagate the idea, via in-flight announcements and other avenues [ ?? at check-in] for passengers to keep passports cash and items of crucial importance on their person at all times.

"Sir, Madam, we insist you keep your vital "stuff" on your person at all times during the flight as, in an emergency, access to the overhead lockers is not permitted/prohibited/unavailable etc".....

I wonder if those scrambling for hand-baggage aren't often just grabbing their vital stuff?

Being stuck anywhere in the States without a passport is a nightmare.

We are all trained to do this but this team showed us how it's done. Thanks for the demo BA. Stand very proud.

Great work professionals
 

I know I'm only a PAX, but it is always reassuring to see how well the professionals respond in a situation like this. I trust them all with my safety, and these guys & gals did a great job of getting the a/c stopped, getting all the pax off (some with hand luggage:ugh:), and getting the fire out promptly.

A thank you, not just to those involved in this case, but to all the crews who would respond in the same way to ensure the best possible outcome.:D

Something about an uncontained engine failure that may not be apparent if you haven't experienced one: I was aboard a B-52H that put a fan blade through a cowling and the noise was immense, like being inside the world's largest pipe organ. I am pretty sure that in this incident every soul on board knew there was a serious problem as soon as it happened.

@Gordomac

Well said.

An excellent post by Dave's Brother.

How many of the ranting anti-cabin baggage group have gone to you tube and the BA safety video? The 'and take nothing with you' is a throw away line in the video given less emphasis than blowing into the tube of a live vest. In another airline it is some words scrolling on a bus destination board and in one I regularly fly on it is never mentioned.

If it is that important that pax do not take their valuable possessions with them then the airlines (that is you Ppruners) are going to have to change.

First. Make it totally plain to everyone that in an emergency evacuation pax must NOT take bags with them. Repeat it. Sack marketing men who hide this advice in jokey 'right on' giggling safety briefings. Safety briefings must be formal and start with LISTEN TO THIS IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE level warnings and pax that talk/read in a safety briefing should be called out as endangering themselves and the other pax.

Second. The Airline needs to take responsibility for looking after pax who lose wallets and documentation and luggage. Almost always airlines take no responsibility for what happens to pax after an evacuation. As reported earlier in the thread to the extent that pax who obeyed the 'no hand baggage' rules were incarcerated for a day and a half before their embassy could produce replacement papers. Not our problem says the airline - but it is as pax know that the airlines (that many of you moaners work for ) will abandon them to the joys of dealing with unsympathetic immigration officers - so they take their bags with those papers with them in evacuations.

Third. Rather like the above the airline must secure the pax belongings left behind. In several incidents pax lost expensive equipment because they left it behind as they were told by the moaners here and the airline failed in its duty of care. If pax suspect their valuables are going to be stolen they will not want to leave them in an evacuation.

Fourth. Airlines should provide cheap small document and cell phone pouches of an international standard size and design to pax and assure them that those WILL be allowed with them during evacuations. Just making pax look at the bags and what they are for will reinforce the no other bags warnings.

The airlines must be proactive before the incidents rather than prosecute after an incident when it is too late.

Well Done all round.
Everything done as per training.

Listening to the ATC tape, there does appear to be a time-gap between the Speedbird stopping message, and the Mayday fire services requested message.
Did the flight crew not realise that a fire was (or was likely to have) started?
ATC appear to have despatched fire services anyway, but given this delay, and the damage already occuring to the fueselage/cabin, we're looking at few seconds before catastrophe, it seems.

In now way am I critical, but I'm just interested in this gap between announcing stop, and calling for fire service.

The ATC was busy and I think that is the only reason.
By and large the reaction time by everyone concerned was remarkable.

I don't know for certain yet but I think the wing tank remained undamaged. A flight from LAS would have full wings and the rest in the CWT. A punctured tank(s) with blazing fuel pouring out I think the damage would be just a tad more severe!
The damage to the motor appears to be on the left hand side, mounted there is the MFP and the HMU and the main fuel feed tubing. A compressor blade departing company would not penetrate the casing, however an HPT blade departing at the disc might just have enough energy.

'Interested Passenger', the BA 737 RTO/fire at Manchester in which nearly half the passengers were killed by smoke inhalation demonstrated the importance of evacuation procedures. A great deal of research led to many improvements in design, procedures and legislation. One of my close relatives was involved in the investigation: anyone who thinks that an evacuation is a time-available disembarkation with bags, would do well to read the report and see the photgraphs of the inside of the cabin.

The ultimate message is that a fire and evacuation is a time-critical life and death event. The purpose of the evacuation is to save lives not baggage and any actions that slow down or interfere with the evacuation are unacceptable. While you are dicking around with a bag even if only for seconds, someone further down the cabin could be inhaling toxic smoke. I'm astonished by some of the comments here that seem to condone this behaviour.

Apart from that little rant, a superb job by all the crew and fire services that saved many lives. Well done Speedbird.

There should be no ambiguity about any personal effects in that situation, nothing is vital and can be replaced, passport is a bit of paper, mobile phone, there are millions of them, start telling people to keep them about their person and they will start transferring it when they should be getting off a burning plane, as realistically several hours with your passport, wallet etc in your pocket isn't comfortable.


Get off the plane, that is all there is to it, worst comes to the worst you get to do a Tom hanks in the airport for a few days and have a tale to tell when you get home.


I get so frustrated with other passengers with their massive carry on luggage, just check it ffs and perhaps not get up and faff about with it every fifteen minutes ? the maximum bag size should be half the size is it now, just deal with the baggage reclaim.


this does have echoes of the Manchester disaster, obviously no two incidents are exactly the same but 30 years on this resulted in a ruined plane and a few sprains and bruises by the sound of it, not 55 funerals and life changing injuries, I saw that pall of smoke when doing my paper round that morning in 85, its nice to think that this result is partly down to the lessons learnt from that incident, and some good has come from it 30 years hence, that and the performance of the industry, crew and emergency services, if not all the passengers....

You can't fix "stupid." Choose one:

1. Stuck for 36 hours without important documents, left behind when evacuating a burning aircraft. (I keep mine in a light vest that I wear, and my German wife has one of those weird little pouches hung around her neck for such items, but that might just be us. It's not so much being poised to flee impending doom with the speed of a thousand startled gazelles, just that some tea-leaf might actually steal whatever we have left in that locker, perhaps while we are sleeping or visiting the toilet.)

2. Being on a slab in the morgue, stone dead because you were stuck on a burning aircraft waiting for someone who needed to take his carry-on baggage, which included important documents.

The same sort of people who ignore the safety briefing don't bother to look for the nearest exit (as they are told to during the briefing that they have ignored), and also don't bother to look at the safety card to see which sort of exits their airplane has ... those are the same people who are going to be stood there fishing their bags out of the lockers instead of focusing on getting down the aisle and off the airplane.

I agree that these "cutesy" briefings (looking at you here, Southwest Airlines) perhaps trivialize something that is important, although the notion is that people shall pay more attention to something told to them in such a light-hearted way, even an important safety briefing.

What we need is segregated seating. One section for those of us 100% focused on surviving an emergency, another for those who shall need to get their carry-on bags, perhaps need to use their phone to record the event for posterity, or do whatever seems to be a good idea, whatever goes through their tiny, unfocused minds once they finally realize that, yes, this is an emergency and never mind what that travel agent promised them. As it is, the problem for the first group is that the second group is going to be in their way, unfair as that is.

This was a very serious fire. Those who committed the crime of taking hand baggage with them could, had things gone a little worse, have been guilty of manslaughter.

We need to differentiate between the two types of "cabin baggage". The photos I have seen tend to show the "smaller" stuff that goes at your feet, rather than the "bigger" stuff that goes into the overhead lockers.

I think we all agree that "stopping" to get stuff from an overhead locker is "not a good idea", but if it is at your feet it doesn't even take second to pick it up and take it with you.

And although I have never been in an aeroplane evacation, I can't image "every one gets up and leaves their seats" all at the same time anyway.

Blocking the aisle to rummage around the overhead locker is one thing, taking the small bag interfering with your feet is another.

My wife always flies with her handbag down there, but I can't bear to have my feet "obstructed" so my hand baggage is always in the locker.

Having been involved in four major building fire / evacuations over the years my personal advice there is to take 5 seconds to assess the situation and then move quickly. In a plane, just follow the evacuation directions instantly to the nearest available exit... fewer options available so just takes half a second to assess. which way to go.

Gladrag

As a new, very young, jumbo skipper many years ago I had an engine failure about 100 kts, I completed the RTO and found for various reasons that I had to evacuate the aircraft (one of the most sobering decisions I've ever had to make) - I saw at first hand the human nature that gets exhibited in these situations ...... "if you get in front of me and my family with your baggage......" trust me !

Rgds

Trossie (and others), you aren't going to solve the problem until you understand it. I don't understand it either - but I strongly suspect it's a lot more complex than people thinking that their tag-along is more important than getting the hell out of the airplane quickly. That does not mean it's condonable - and I don't think I or anyone else here has said that it is. Just that it's more complicated than you'd like to think.

All this talk of fines and prosecutions and failure to obey crew commands is utter nonsense if you don't understand why and how people behave the way they do in a full-on emergency. This industry needs some research into why people do this.

And see my comment re Asiana - where it's been suggested that PAX were instructed to take bags with them because they were obstructing the aisle.

ChisseyLuke


"Listening to the ATC tape, there does appear to be a time-gap between the Speedbird stopping message, and the Mayday fire services requested message.
Did the flight crew not realise that a fire was (or was likely to have) started?
ATC appear to have despatched fire services anyway, but given this delay, and the damage already occuring to the fueselage/cabin, we're looking at few seconds before catastrophe, it seems.

In now way am I critical, but I'm just interested in this gap between announcing stop, and calling for fire service."

Following an RTO, well-trained flight crew are educated to ensure the park brake is set, the reverser(s) is/are stowed and clear handover of control is given to the captain, if the FO was flying the aircraft (unsure in this instance who's sector it was). We are then advised to take a couple of deep breaths and assess the gravity of the situation before carrying out any drills. The severity is reconsidered and then the captain makes a decision to evacuate or not.
If these vital steps are not covered, you may run the risk of evacuating an aircraft with engines running and it self-taxiing across the airfield. Not very healthy for the evacuees and other airport users.
These actions have to be done with a degree of urgency, but it takes time. I think the timescale here was nothing short of incredibly good.

No you are not critical, just not very clever.

And as we are talking about evacuation and many posters stay in unfamiliar hotels, please :-

- DO check to see where your nearest fire exit is
- DO count the number of doorways between your room and the fire exit (imagine thick dense smoke and having to feel your way)
- Do use the BACK of your hand when feeling blindly for those doorways because many hotels run mains electric cables at floor level which might be exposed. The last thing you want to do is touch one with your palm because you won't be able to let go.