Sign in to follow this  
z06z33

British Airways 777 on fire at Las Vegas.

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Very dramatic....uncontained engine failure on takeoff.....what annoys me is the sight of the people evacuated who managed to take all their hand luggage with them, down the emergency slides....seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very dramatic....uncontained engine failure on takeoff.....what annoys me is the sight of the people evacuated who managed to take all their hand luggage with them, down the emergency slides....seriously?

 

I would for sure try and grab my laptop. Macbook pros are very expensive.  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at a photo, engine one is absolutely shattered, reminds me of the damage to the QF A380....also a RR Trent engine...very lucky nobody was seriously hurt.

 

Audio here:

 

https://clyp.it/jrvdzhrw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is comforting news seeing as I have booked early today to fly British Airways to Las Vegas next year  :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is that

 

I would for sure try and grab my laptop. Macbook pros are very expensive.  :wink:

This was the 1 in 7 million chance when it would have been handy to tick that ridiculously expensive insurance box that all the airlines try to sneak in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is comforting news seeing as I have booked early today to fly British Airways to Las Vegas next year :good:

 

What are the odds of this happening once, let alone twice on the same airline on the same route? I bet you'll be fine!

 

To my knowledge, the 777 (any engine) has never suffered an uncontained engine failure. And that's with millions upon millions of hours of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently we are booked on a 777 this Saturday with my 7 month old daughter, which would be the only thing I would be taking with me down the slide if this sort of thing happened, anyone taking luggage with them, not cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


What are the odds of this happening once, let alone twice on the same airline on the same route? I bet you'll be fine!

 

My post was meant as tongue in cheek anyway  :smile: . Just the irony of making the booking and this happening the very same day!

 

Besides, my flights will be on a Boeing 747 so that should mean I'm extra safe  :Tounge:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So those selfish self centerd Passengers who took their carry on bags Risk other Passangers Lives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me really annoyed to see people with luggage. Imagine someone in front of you blocking your exit while they reach for the overheard bins to grab their bag. Some people are really living in their own world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the odds of this happening once, let alone twice on the same airline on the same route? I bet you'll be fine!

 

Actually, contrary to popular beliefs, statistics formulas tell us that the odds of it happening twice on the same airline and on the same route, _once_ it happened the first time, are exactly the same as before, no more and no less. :smile: Thinking otherwise, would be the same statistical fallacy of him who brings a fake bomb in his luggage, to lower the probability of having two bombs on the same flight. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looking at a photo, engine one is absolutely shattered, reminds me of the damage to the QF A380....also a RR Trent engine...very lucky nobody was seriously hurt.

 

The report says that the engines are General Electric GE90s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report says that the engines are General Electric GE90s

You are correct, their -200 fleet is powered by the GE90. The aircraft is a write off, the fire damage on the left wing and fuselage box is extensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone here have any insights what this means for ETOPS Calculations for the T7 ?

 

As far as i am aware the extremly extended ETOPS for the T7 basically result from the reliability of the GE90, now with something like this will this be lowered again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will depend what the investigation finds; if there are any reductions in ETOPS limits I would expect it to apply to certain GE90s only and be temporary until a fix is installed. However I find a reduction in ETOPS unlikely, given the operational history.

 

By the way, the original 777 "ETOPS out the box" was based around the PW4000. Only later 773ER and 772LR were based around the GE90 to begin with, because it's the sole engine on those variants.

 

PS: Engine involved in this incident is definitely a GE90, the photos clearly show GE's carbon fibre LP compressor fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at a photo, engine one is absolutely shattered, reminds me of the damage to the QF A380....also a RR Trent engine...very lucky nobody was seriously hurt.

 

Audio here:

 

https://clyp.it/jrvdzhrw

 

The Boring 777 involved tail number G-VIIO was GE not RR powered one. And speaking of uncontained failures, it happens every now and then but never as spectacular as this one. This incident reminds me of that China Airlines 737 that went up in flames at Naha Airport in August 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the first time a GE90 BA 777 has had en engine fire on the ground, does anyone remember the incident at Denver in 2001 where a fire broke out during refuelling, killing one of the ground crew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the first time a GE90 BA 777 has had en engine fire on the ground, does anyone remember the incident at Denver in 2001 where a fire broke out during refuelling, killing one of the ground crew?

 

Ya i remember it. Clearly something went wrong again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NTSB report on the incident at Denver showed
 

As the maintenance-engineer looked up at the refueler, he observed the inboard fuel hose separate sideways (forward, in relationship to the truck) from the airplane, and flap around "violently spraying fuel in all directions." He yelled at the refueler that the "hose was loose." The maintenance-engineer was immediately soaked with fuel and even swallowed some. He said the flames propagated up from the bottom of the truck, through the open lattice of the lift platform floor, and "engulfed the fueler." He immediately ran for a large fire-extinguishing bottle.

 

A second maintenance-engineer was standing inboard of the left engine when he "felt the heat and turned and looked to see a huge fire had broken out at the fuel truck [hydrant truck]." The airplane's captain was standing inside the airplane near the door to the jetway. He said that a flight attendant was the first crewmember to notice the fire; her alarm motivated him to move to a jetway window to view aft. He said that he observed a "fire near [the] left engine," and he ordered all remaining persons to immediately evacuate the airplane.

.

.

Safety Board investigators could not identify another accident similar to this accident (in which the adapter ring failed while under full refueling flow, and the nozzle completely separated from the airplane).

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20010918X01956&ntsbno=DEN01FA157&akey=1

 

EDIT

 

The NTSB Probable Cause was

 

The overstress fracture of the airplane's refueling adapter ring that resulted from the abnormal angular force applied to it. The applied angular force occurred due to the ground refueler inadequately positioning the hydrant fuel truck (in relation to the airplane), and his inattentiveness while lowering the refueling lift platform, thus permitting the refueling hose to become snagged and pulled at an angle

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20010918X01956&key=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


You are correct, their -200 fleet is powered by the GE90. The aircraft is a write off, the fire damage on the left wing and fuselage box is extensive.

That's not strictly true BA also has several 777-200 that are Rolls Royce powered.

My guess also is that the A/c may not be a write off yet as the only photo I've seen  of the left side shows the the wing fairings melted and skin damage also the inboard slat looks done.All of which is repairable It will really depend on the wing skins externally and internally  but I wouldn't write it off yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not strictly true BA also has several 777-200 that are Rolls Royce powered.

My guess also is that the A/c may not be a write off yet as the only photo I've seen  of the left side shows the the wing fairings melted and skin damage also the inboard slat looks done.All of which is repairable It will really depend on the wing skins externally and internally  but I wouldn't write it off yet.

 

Yeah , you are correct too but in this case it was a GE90 powered 777 inovlved and not an RR powered 777. And were keeping the thread limited to the GE90 powered one's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this