British Airways 777 on fire at Las Vegas.

[WR269 367]

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.

[alpha12125 213]

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 ?

[ckyliu 1,749]

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.

[swap17 5]

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.

[ckyliu 1,749]

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?

[swap17 5]

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.

[mgh 89]

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

[mazelda 124]

 

 

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.

[KevinAu 441]

This is the proper way to save your crap when the plane is burning up on the runway.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsd3poTT-I

[swap17 5]

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.

[mazelda 124]

I know it was a GE90 engine I was mearly pointing out that BA also has RR powered 777-200

I have flown on that very a/c on several occasions! Most recently in May

[n4gix 4,947]

They were all very lucky that the engine blew while they still had time to abort and stop. Thirty seconds longer and it would probably have been a total catastrophe! :Whew:

[swap17 5]

GE has had a history of Uncontained engine failures. First in their CF6-6D's and then the CF6-50, CF6-80A,C,E series but in the GE90's that's rare. 

[vololiberista 205]

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.

The fuselage almost certainly sustained fire damage in which case it will be a write-off.

They were all very lucky that the engine blew while they still had time to abort and stop. Thirty seconds longer and it would probably have been a total catastrophe! :Whew:

 

This is reminiscent of BOAC flight 712 that took-off from Heathrow immediately after which an engine caught fire and the pilot managed to land back. Sadly though there were some fatalities.

 

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-boac712.shtml

[ckyliu 1,749]

GE has had a history of Uncontained engine failures. First in their CF6-6D's and then the CF6-50, CF6-80A,C,E series but in the GE90's that's rare. 

 

I don't know how the later GE90s were tested, but the first GE90s blade-off tests were not conducted in the standard manner, by detaching the blade at the root. Instead, the blade was detached where it met the hub. I remember the other engine manufacturers making a fuss of about this at the time, but how much difference it makes to the energy that must be contained I couldn't say.