And while you/they fiddle, Rome burns.

Just get off the aircraft.

Looking at a mobile while diving
 

Demonstrates two things. Possession of a remarkably waterproof phone, and a touching faith in submarine network coverage.😜

Banning all carry-on is the only way to stop folks taking their bags in an emergency evac.

In a crisis, some people shut down and do nothing, others carry on as if everything is normal, and the rest treat it like the life threatening situation that it is. For many, standing and retrieving their bag is the only way they have ever exited an aircraft.

Even FAs are known to deactivate the slides when they open the doors in an emergency, because that is how they always open the door except in the training hull.

That everyone got out alive is testament to the excellent training and professionalism of the crew. Great job dealing with a very bad situation.

To all the hand luggage apologists, I beg you to listen to the professionals who have posted on this site. However smart, fit and agile you think you are, if you start picking up your stuff and opening overhead lockers, others will copy you.

Do not take any hand luggage with you. No exceptions.

Stopping passengers taking their bags is a matter of raising awareness beforehand, so that the majority of passengers know about it, and will not be surprised when asked to do so in a moment of extreme stress. If old Granny Stumbleshoes wants to take her knitting from the overhead locker or Mr Smartarse Executive feels his computer is more important than a person at the back of the queue, then neither of them are going to give in quietly when the cabin staff tell them to leave their stuff and get out and under those circumstances it makes sense not to argue since it will waste time. But if all passengers were made aware right from the outset that they might be required to leave everything, and the reason why, then we might at last start to make an impact on the problem. As has been said many times, you can’t predict what people will do in panic, but the more familiar and consistent the message, the more likely it will be heeded. At the moment there isn’t any message.

One handy tip for travelling.
Before departure scan all documents; passport, driving license, travel tickets, traveler's cheques, credit cards etc and email them to your own Gmail account.
You can then retrieve them nearly instantly anywhere in the world on any computer or smartphone.
Perfect when you lose anything through any circumstances.

Carry on baggage/ Marketing.
 

One of The reasons why so much carry on is carried is because, in this hurry up world, the delivery of hold baggage to the reclaim is inordinately long. The carrier I worked for had targets of 1st bag on the belt within 15mins of blocks, last, 40 mins. The target for compliance was 90% and we were close to meeting this most of the time.
Other reasons include mishandled baggage and the fear of your bag not arriving. With the advent of reconciliations systems, the mishandling of point to point baggage is remarkably low - our carrier averaged around 1.5 bags per 1000 pax. BUT...transfer baggage is a different matter - usually becuase, wrongly, many transferring carriers put low priority to these bags since the problem of pax confrontation is at a different airport!
So... With this in mind .... Many carriers encouraged (marketed) the acceptance of carry-on baggage sometimes advertising that their allowance was 2 bags providing you could lift them into the overhead lockers without assistance.
The suggestions of locking overheads would certainly reduce the thoughtless idiot blocking the aisle for other escaping passengers but on a risk/cost analysis would probably reject the upgrade required. I liked the suggestion that those who had carry on with them on the ground after the evacuation should be prosecuted but that would be unlikely to happen which is a shame.
It is never to be forgotten that cabin crew are not just glorified waiters/ waitresses. The actions of these and the cockpit crew appear to have been exemplary

@ Eclectic
I have them all scanned and stored in Dropbox (other cloud services are available) for that purpose. I can access all of the documentation from any smartphone or an internet terminal at the airport/hospital/police station.

Misty.

There is little to be gained by wringing one's hands and blaming the passengers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having to think logically.

The issue is to find out what happened and contributing factors so as to continue to have a safe outcome in spite of the passengers individual actions.

I keep reading the many pages in this thread just to find out from those on-scene what happened to the plane.

Some after incident passenger reaction here including reports of what passengers had left behind and what appears to be some lack of communication from BA in the immediate aftermath. Easy to criticise in a fast moving situation as we don't know what else was going on.

Passengers stranded after plane fire - Story | Southern Nevada - Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City | LasVegasNow | KLAS-TV

Anyway, you can see from the picture in post 123 that the aircraft is partially off the paved surface and from the FR24 data released, it seems to have stopped at approx 40 degree to the centreline. That's no criticism of the crew by the way; they did a magnificent job of stopping and getting everyone out.

What this does show is the importance of having the appropriate cleared and graded area at the runway edges. Some big international airports I've been to have uncovered pits, trenches and god knows what in this area - all traps for both off piste aircraft or evacuating passengers.

In this case in the desert, these surfaces are strong enough to support the aircraft weight, but notice how the pax out of Door 4L are able to get well away without having to negotiate any obstructions. Passengers from the right hand side were evacuating onto the runway. And well done to the cabin crew who can be seen marshalling evacuated passengers away from the scene to safer locations.

Top job to the whole crew for doing their job in a most professional way - when it mattered. :ok:

Don't you think that they had their hands full actually stopping. Once they'd stopped they could have called for fire services. 15 seconds or so is not long. Think how long it'll take you to a full stop on a motorway.

No "flaming" intended. I was simply pointing out that that jacket is impractical in Nevada.

In any case, it's not a binary choice between that jacket or carrying a bag. People can make their own minds up as to what to carry in terms of passport/wallet/nothing and how to carry it. Obviously some of them get it wrong, but most don't.

If you have 2-factor-authentication, this is not true. If you don't have 2FA don't email your whole identity to yourself ;)

As some idea of the size of bags removed from a plane on fire with smoke in the cabin (and not to judge, to inform);

http://imgur.com/qLTrKH3.jpg

Taking cabin baggage is not a considered decision
 

There are many comments treating the decision by some passengers to take baggage during evacuation as if this is a considered decision by the passengers, if this was the case it would be not just stupid but reckless.

The reality however is that passengers will be surprised and shocked. I would expect many of them to be confused and in confusion fall back onto habitual patterns of behaviour however inappropriate.

There shoudl be research into how best to alleviate this problem. Prosecution should only be considered if the research shows it would make a significant difference. Personally I think improved briefing/communications would work better but the point is to research it. If prosecutions are made then the chances are that those prosecuted are simply confused and disorientated rather than deliberately cuplable. I could accept this if it can be show that prosecuting what are effectively victims will reduce further deaths but only if that can be shown. I think the morality of prosecution is dubious even in that case.

:ok: Whether to "skew" or not as you stop for an engine fire with an X-wind is becoming more of a briefing item for us, especially on the more long bodied -300, and most especially at airports with less benign runway shoulders....At some places putting in a minor turn as you stop is going to put those going down slides at 5L or 5R into a storm drain, or worse...personally I'd be grateful to just get stopped and doubt I'd have the capacity to do much else..:\.

As for the comments about 15 seconds between "stopping" and the "mayday"...:ugh:very much :ugh:

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but I was surprised to see the escape chutes on the port side (side of the engine fire) being deployed. Passengers escaping into a danger area (engine fire, fire service vehicles manoeuvring etc).

I don't think anyone is actually arguing that carrying luggage during an emergency evacuation is anything but wrong. However I think the psychology bears some examination.

There's almost certainly a distinction in many passengers' minds which may arise in these situations. If the threat is plainly visible and imminent - say a fire inside the cabin - I doubt if many people would prioritise their spare undies over an immediate swift exit, unencumbered. However if the evacuation is being initiated in response to factors known only to the flight crew and not obvious, I suspect many passengers would think "may as well..." It's a fact of human psychology that we are inclined to think that bad outcomes - like death - always happen to someone else.

Personally I've always carried the absolute essentials on my person rather than in cabin baggage and can't imagine why anyone would do otherwise. As for the issue of excessive cabin baggage it infuriates me as much as it does professionals in the industry. However having had hold baggage lost five times (on one occasion permanently) it's hard to resist the temptation to carry on sufficient semi-essentials to cover the possibility.

Given the gravity of a situation requiring emergency evacuation, I'm surprised that it's not accompanied by PA instructions (language limitations accepted) forcefully ordering appropriate procedures - like NO baggage. It'd have to help, I'd have thought.

Rotor disk failure? Maybe not
 

A signature of a disc burst is the creation of several projectiles - usually three - flying in diverging paths in the plane of rotation; the obvious corollary is three holes in the case and cowl.

I see no holes in the outboard side of the cowl.

So - I'm beginning to suspect a pressure vessel burst. The big fans run at very high pressure ratio, and design criteria take the pressures and temperatures and cyclic fatigue into account. Then we have the odd phenomenon of a berserk burner weakening the pressure vessel through local overheating, leading to a blowout (e.g. Kegworth)

Just surveying the available evidence...

Does anybody sane on here actually believe that a prosecution against a passenger reacting to an emergency by taking their bag could possibly be made to stick?

Apart from anything else, there would obviously have to be exceptions.

There would be people who needed inhalers or particular drugs for a start.
There would be evacuations in Northern Norway in -35C where a coat would be a good idea.

Getting Essential Safety Information Across to Pax ...
 

To those criticising humorous / informal flight safety demonstrations:

There is a major problem with strictly formal flight safety demos. Whilst they tick the legal boxes, the sad reality is that many pax simply don't engage with them. Especially at unsociable hours. They are perceived as dry, boring and - literally - a turn-off. Seen 'em before. They simply do not grab attention.

The ultimate objective of a safety demo must be to convey crucial life-saving information to passengers; ticking the legal requirement boxes alone is not sufficient. To this end, there is clear evidence that less formal / humorous flight safety demos DO SUCCEED in drawing and retaining the attention of passengers. The Southwest briefings cited in an earlier post draw laughs but do successfully get the message across. A droning robotic delivery keeps one's attention like the small-print on an insurance policy.

As a piece of anec***al evidence, I contrast the attention paid to the (formal) flight safety demo by passengers aboard a recent flight by a familiar scheduled leisure airline - more than half the pax appeared to take no notice whatsoever - and that noted aboard the return flight. The return flight was operated by CONDOR FLUGDIENST, a German charter airline forming part of the Thomas Cook Group. Their safety video is available for viewing on Youtube in both German and English language versions. Take a look. It is an outstanding piece of engaging film-making with a serious intent. Whilst it is humorous and very entertaining, it achieved almost 100% engagement with the pax on the flight I used. And that is the whole point. It got the message across. Those calling for (dry) formal demos / videos only have it absolutely wrong. Too many pax will totally ignore them.

I'm flying a similar trip next week - out from MAN with a regular leisure carrier, back to MAN with CFG. I will take careful note of the passenger attention to the respective safety videos. I fully expect that the humorous one will again emerge the clear winner.

EDIT: Question: Any idea why site software has censored the word A - N - E - C - D - O - T - A - L ? What am I missing here?

You're a long way forward of the engines in the 777 and they aren't visible from the cockpit. The fire loops give indication of a fire within the engine housing. This warning can also be a 'hot gas leak' coming from either a blown seal or a crack in the casing.

The fire warning will cause the 'Stop' call to be made then there is a pause for all three pilots to confirm the indications and identify the potential cause. Once the cause has been established then the appropriate call can be made.

The delay is to ascertain exactly the severity of the situation as putting your passengers out of the aircraft, down the slides onto an active, busy airfield isn't a decision that any Captain would take lightly. Once the initial 'alert' call has been made and the fire verified then the second call would be made.

Simple answer never rush!

Human nature of a imminent threat has a lot to do with passengers taking their baggage or not. I'm sure some didn't know how serious the situation was at the time . A simple leave all carry on bags after the evacuation order would help as well as convey the serious situation. The industry as a whole has to do more to stress the importance of leaving baggage behind during a evacuation order .

Just reviewing the comments and available evidence it would appear that:
Those who were trained professionals in this incident (on the flight deck, in the cabin, in ATC and the rescue guys) all acted in a highly professional manner and all contributed to stopped this incident becoming a tragedy.


Some of those who were not trained (ie the pax) acted irrationally because of selfishness or lack of awareness. My conclusion - the bags issue is an industry problem and training/education is the only answer.

The wind had started to pick up a bit out of the NNW. Upwind on the fire side seems like as good a choice as downwind and the smoke side. Unloading twice as fast from an aircraft on fire may have entered the decision as well.

Boeing and GE comments on FAA's 2011 "unsafe condition" qualification of GE80-85B
 

From FAA AD 2011-15-06 concerning "unsafe condition" of GE90-76B; GE90-77B; GE90-85B; GE90- 90B; and GE90-94B Turbofan Engines
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
"This AD was prompted by cracks discovered on one HPCR 8-10 spool between the 9-10 stages in the weld joint. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane".

"Request
Two commenters, General Electric Company and The Boeing Company, requested that we remove the ''Unsafe Condition'' paragraph from the AD, and reword the Summary section to resemble the Summary section of AD 2002-04-11. The commenters stated that, by their analyses, cracks in the weld joint would not develop into an uncontained failure. The commenters stated that HPCR 8-10 stage spools, P/Ns 1844M90G01 and 1844M90G02, be inspected by an enhanced inspection, similar to those parts covered in AD 2002-04-11.

Answer
We do not agree. AD 2002-04-11 was issued because of additional focused inspection procedures that had been developed by the manufacturer. Because cracks were discovered on one HPCR 8-10 spool between the 9-10 stages in the weld joint, this unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. The unsafe condition could result in failure of the HPCR 8-10 stage spool, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane. We determined that this unsafe condition requires mandatory repetitive inspections for cracks. We did not change the AD."

There is a picture of the starboard side of the aircraft in this story.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...engine-416536/

A lot of soot just aft of the R2 door.

"Some of those who were not trained (ie the pax) acted irrationally because of selfishness or lack of awareness. My conclusion - the bags issue is an industry problem and training/education is the only answer."

I would think that given the difficulty inherent in trying to educate those either potentially, or actually, in an emergency situation to act responsibly and according to regulation, the only answer to this dilemma is to seriously restrict the amount of baggage that can be taken into the cabin to begin with.


This would be enforceable on the ground prior to departure; it may cause some issues and arguments but they will be contained away from the A/C.


It would be reasonable to allow folks access to their medication, and devices en route - phones, laptops and so on - and indeed pragmatic in terms of items with batteries which are liable to catch fire from time to time, and better in the cabin than in the hold - but the size of bags could be limited to a laptop carrier or small backpack, which could be stored under the seat and carried easily on ones person.


Overhead lockers would be slightly defunct if no one was allowed to use them for baggage, but in a situation like this, it would cut out one of the potential threats to fast evacuation.


Simply put: if the baggage isn't there, people won't be trying to access it, or indeed have to waste time trying to prevent others from accessing theirs.

@ tourist. I disagree. Endangering life is exactly that. I would dearly love the Federal Authorities to go and arrest those who are sitting there in their hotel room with their carry-on luggage in their possession. In fact, the airport authorities could have easily separated those with their luggage as they arrived at the terminal building.

All this talk of minor inconveniences because people have not got their passport vs a few fellow passengers being burned alive is frankly very depressing and indicates a lack of humanity by those suggesting otherwise.

Leave luggage behind. Period.

I am surprised at the number of posts that feel the crew reaction was slow. I suspect most if not all those posts are not from professional pilots. There is a lot to do in the cockpit in this type of situation. Their overall response time was as quick as I can possibly imagine. At first glance everything about this incident appears to be textbook perfect. The last thing in the world you want to do is rush. It's been shown over and over that knee jerk reactions lead to very bad situations. The timing, communications, exits used and outcome were all perfect.

90 Kt Taxi?
 

BA were reporting that the aircraft was taxiing at 90 Kts? Obviously a take off roll abort at 90 Kts fits the description better.
Well done the Gatwick crew who ensured the safety of the passengers and acted so professionally.:D Hope their company appreciate it since their bit is what is seen more by the passengers than anything else. Shame they seem to be in line for pay and condition cuts and have new contract forced on them....

And the decision to throw passengers and crew down slides will always result in some injuries, that there were so few can only be seen as a good thing.

BZ all round.....:ok:

Reply to #152
 

Hopefully the following might explain the gap, which I thought appears to infer a controlled and prompt actions from the flight deck.

BA SOP's :- After STOP called and being achieved, PNH might well advise TWR of intentions.
Capt continues (else resumes) as PH and when safely stopped (if circumstances & brain functions allow : stop close to a taxiway for easy access of emergency vehicles; if RWY width & surroundings appropriate, nose into side of fault if headwind; away if tailwind).
Capt calls "Identify the Failure".
FO presumably called "Engine Fire Left"; fault confirmed between both.
Capt calls for "Fire Engine Left Memory Items".
FO identifies the appropriate switch, monitored and confirmed by Capt before actioning each switch.
Remember, neither pilot can see anything more than part of the wing tip on his side even when pressing ones cheek against the cockpit window.
Capt must rely on significant information from ATC and/or cabin crew.
BA Cabin Crew are authorized under certain 'catastrophic' circumstances to contact the flight crew directly rather than going through the Cabin Service Director/Purser.

(Health Warning : author of above was a 35 year career with BA ending up as Capt 777 for his last 9 years before retiring over 5 years ago)

I like BA as it still does show considerable professionalism from its staff. I usually fly BA and will continue to do so. The Las Vegas incident reinforces my choice to take BA.

I study major incidents as my role is to risk manage/ensure safety in hospitals. This incident gave me the shivers as it was so similar to the Manchester air disaster. I am amazed that there were only very minor injuries. The crew did exceptionally well that no one died. All credit too to the emergency services on the ground. No one will think of this incident in a month or two. That is a good thing.

Great job by the BA flight crew. Some people who are not pilots forget there are critical checklists to perform even in a time sensitive situation. The BA crew worked together and the result was no fatalities. I think flight crews have learned a lot since Manchester and it showed.

I visited the US a few years back - Edinburgh - New York - Pittsburgh - Dallas (I think) - Las Vegas - New York - Edinburgh.


I was astonished how much carry on luggage people had, until I was told by my friends in Pittsburgh that bags were very frequently lost or had stuff stolen from them. I started taking my valuables in the cabin, had to buy an extra bag for them.

If the concern is that people who took their hand baggage slowed others behind them, perhaps we should ban all things that delay quick evacuation.

Fat people.
Old people.
High heels.
Unsuitable clothing.
Children.
Disabled people.
Pregnant people.

All these delay evacuation....

Some of them are even personal choice....

I believe ;) it might be a recommendation (crowd control, co-ordination, help safety service folks to recognise who is crew...etc..)

Baggage Policies
 

Just another thought for those criticising pax who take large amounts of luggage into the cabin. Many airlines now charge an additional fee - often substantial - for checking luggage into the hold. This system is rapidly educating customers to take as much as possible into the cabin with them free of charge. We increasingly see this as standard behaviour on all flights, regardless of the baggage policies offered by individual carriers.

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.

The industry must take the lead on this. It is a problem induced by the policies of airlines themselves, not customers. We can't blame a regular family for avoiding the expense of discretionary hold baggage charges. They WILL bring maximum cabin baggage instead if they can. It is just common sense.

The decision to open a door is left to the cabin crew member at that door. They look out, assess for danger and then decide. The crew member at L2 made a very good decision. To L1 and L4 it presumably looked clear, because it was.

Wallets, phones, passports are easily replaced. Hats on the other hand, are like rocking horse cr@p. Grap that, but throw your license on the fire, that should give you a nice long break.

Mickj3

The captain will have ordered the evacuation (Evac alarm and/or by PA, preferably both) and also possibly highlighted in the PA that there was a hazard on the left of the aircraft (in this case). As others have pointed out it is then down to the individual crew member at each door to assess for hazards outside their own exit before deciding whether to open their door or keep it closed and redirect passengers to an available exit. That looks like what happen here since 2L and possibly others don't appear to have been used. Given the location of the fire and the hull length of a 777 I can see no reason at all why the attendants shouldn't have used the forward and aft doors on the left (1 Left and 4 Left in this case).

Hope that helps and reduces the element of surprise.

Nice to see an intelligent post. The industry should have stamped on this marketing ploy (creating headline prices based on over more creative upselling policies) as soon as it appeared. It is human nature to reduce cost if it is possible - even wealthy people do this by deeply ingrained habit. It is also human nature to protect ones important belongings and finally it is human nature to act irrationally under extreme stress.

If the industry wants an increased safety margin where baggage is concerned the answer is 100% in its own hands.

Set a common standard for carry on baggage and enforce industry wide. The rest goes in the hold. Airlines can price it however they want, but not alter the standards. I'm sure there will be someone along to say it's not possible...but frankly it really is that simple.