BA 777 Engine Fire At KLAS.

[jpilot77]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-off.html

[sanjet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stsMzxKrr6Q

ATC recording: https://clyp.it/jrvdzhrw

Looks like all evacuated...

[GARRETT]

Wow, well done!! Amazing professionalism displayed by all involved.

[Heliian]

Holy moly! Great work to the crew for recognizing and reacting to such a frightening emergency. The fire people did a good job in responding quickly and spraying everything with foam. Glad everyone is okay, I am mortified to think what could have happened if they were in the air. I bet some will hit the casino tonight!

[bizjets101]

Video of Evacuation

[Confliction]

Seems (as much as we can tell) like a textbook response...nice!

[JasonE]

Looks like a great job done by all. I'll be on a 777 in 2 weeks.

[GRK2]

Hellion! Why would you be "Mortified" if it happened in the air? The same level and training standards would have been applied, the fire would have been recognised, identified, confirmed and fought with the same professional standards used to reject the take off and fight it on the ground. No difference to the approach used in either scenario. BA has, without much doubt, a very good standard of training and I would fly on them any day. To imply it might be a catastrophe if they were airborne when it happened is downright idiotic. My eyes glaze over every time I hear or read someone say "Well done to the crew" after such an incident. Do you honestly think that they would be any other way? That they would fall down on the job and screw up something that they train for and strive to accomplish every time they fly? What really burns me are passengers who insist on putting others in harms way by refusing to listen to the safety briefing and carrying all their junk off during an evacuation.) So yes, this crew did their job...probably almost perfectly, and you see the results. No praise required...the same goes for the ATC crowd in LAS...training...it saves your ass every time...
Rant over...

[Chaxterium]

Hellion! Why would you be "Mortified" if it happened in the air? The same level and training standards would have been applied, the fire would have been recognised, identified, confirmed and fought with the same professional standards used to reject the take off and fight it on the ground. No difference to the approach used in either scenario.

I understand your point, but I think if you ask anyone if they would rather an engine catch fire in the air or on the ground I'm pretty sure you know what their answer would be. This fire looked pretty significant. Maybe the engine fire extinguishing systems wouldn't have been able to get the fire under control in the air. I'm assuming the BA crew fired the fire bottles in this case and it doesn't look like it did much to stop the fire. The fire didn't stop until the CFR crews doused the plane in foam.

I am curious if the fire extinguishing systems are more effective in the air than on the ground. In the air you obviously have a significant slipstream so does that help or hinder the extinguishing systems?

It's interesting to note in the photo below that there seems to be a lot of fire damage on the fuselage. We can't see the engine unfortunately, except for a small piece of the intake, but it almost looks from the picture as though the fire actually started in the fuselage. Is that a reasonable assumption or am I basing this on too little information? I understand the crew said they had an engine fire and therefore I would assume they had a cockpit indication so I'm happy to concede that I'm probably wrong.

[Heliian]

Chill Grk2, it should be obvious that an in flight catastrophic failure and fire would be a thousand times worse. If they were able to discharge the bottles into that side they didn't do much, nor would they do anything at flight speeds.

[Troubleshot]

It's interesting to note in the photo below that there seems to be a lot of fire damage on the fuselage. We can't see the engine unfortunately, except for a small piece of the intake, but it almost looks from the picture as though the fire actually started in the fuselage. Is that a reasonable assumption or am I basing this on too little information? I understand the crew said they had an engine fire and therefore I would assume they had a cockpit indication so I'm happy to concede that I'm probably wrong.

I would say that is just a product of the materials involved, the Wing-body fairing would burn much faster. I guess a theory could be they had an uncontained engine failure that punctured a fuel tank...who knows.

I would say this most likely an engine shitting the bed and collateral damage ensued. Just guessing that is why they didn't get airborne (rejected take-off)....if it was strictly a fire that originated in the fuselage they would have had little warning until they started to really burn.

great job by all involved, impressed by the airport fire crew response time.

[bobcaygeon]

Hellion! Why would you be "Mortified" if it happened in the air? The same level and training standards would have been applied, the fire would have been recognised, identified, confirmed and fought with the same professional standards used to reject the take off and fight it on the ground. No difference to the approach used in either scenario. BA has, without much doubt, a very good standard of training and I would fly on them any day. To imply it might be a catastrophe if they were airborne when it happened is downright idiotic. My eyes glaze over every time I hear or read someone say "Well done to the crew" after such an incident. Do you honestly think that they would be any other way? That they would fall down on the job and screw up something that they train for and strive to accomplish every time they fly? What really burns me are passengers who insist on putting others in harms way by refusing to listen to the safety briefing and carrying all their junk off during an evacuation.) So yes, this crew did their job...probably almost perfectly, and you see the results. No praise required...the same goes for the ATC crowd in LAS...training...it saves your ass every time...
Rant over...

You know a pilot's cheap when he won't even give someone a compliment.

Aviation training is almost entirely based on past F'ups. Most pilots, FA's, AME's or aircraft design engineers don't go to work and say "I'm really going to screw this up today" but it happens.

The sheep in the back are always the wild card (You mention the passengers grabbing their carry-on) Most pax don't train for evacuations regularly and are very capable of screwing things up even with the best trained back end crews.

A compliment costs nothing and can make the difference in someone's day.

PS BA is the only 1st world carrier to suffer two 777 hull losses so maybe their system isn't so good after all.

[Roar]

This is what chaps my ass.
IMHO all these people that took their luggage with them during an emergency should be charged with reckless endangerment.

[tbaylx]

Hellion! Why would you be "Mortified" if it happened in the air? The same level and training standards would have been applied, the fire would have been recognised, identified, confirmed and fought with the same professional standards used to reject the take off and fight it on the ground. No difference to the approach used in either scenario. BA has, without much doubt, a very good standard of training and I would fly on them any day. To imply it might be a catastrophe if they were airborne when it happened is downright idiotic. My eyes glaze over every time I hear or read someone say "Well done to the crew" after such an incident. Do you honestly think that they would be any other way? That they would fall down on the job and screw up something that they train for and strive to accomplish every time they fly? What really burns me are passengers who insist on putting others in harms way by refusing to listen to the safety briefing and carrying all their junk off during an evacuation.) So yes, this crew did their job...probably almost perfectly, and you see the results. No praise required...the same goes for the ATC crowd in LAS...training...it saves your ass every time...
Rant over...

PS BA is the only 1st world carrier to suffer two 777 hull losses so maybe their system isn't so good after all.

Really? The 777 hull losses are in some way BA's fault? Both mechanical issues it appears that were handled well by well trained crews. No reflection on BA's ops at all, except to show that they run a professional operation.

[Youngback]

The overhead storage should have some sort of a lock that is enabled any time the fasten seatbelt sign is on or at the discretion of the flight/cabin crew. That is complete BS that passengers who I'm sure had a good view of the fireball outside their window decided to stop and take their bags delaying the evacuation.

[timel]

This is what chaps my ass.
IMHO all these people that took their luggage with them during an emergency should be charged with reckless endangerment.

I agree, this is not the first time and not the last time it happens.

I am curious as well to know if the fire would have been extinguished with the bottles discharged in flight, if the fire started on the engine.

[boeingboy]

The left engine completely dumped itself. Pure speculation is that it probably suffered a failure similar to the AA 767 a few years ago in LA, when the HP shaft seperated and the whole turbine section came apart

[GRK2]

Yes...there would have been at least one bottle (we do both with a fire on the ground...if it won't go out, it's an evacuation) Well trained crews are very cautious when it comes to calling for an evacuation. It's a serious move and people will get hurt. Having said that, a high speed reject in a heavy jet is a very serious call as well, and in quite a few cases it will be a better move to take it flying, get some air between you and the ground, sort out your emergency, organise your airplane, organise your crew, and make a plan to return safely under control to an airport. (rather than risk brake fires or running off the end or other such issues that might happen at high speeds) I don't know what speed these guys rejected at. I would guess by the locality of where that BA777 sits it wasn't too fast. The issue I have with the "I would be mortified" statement is simple. We, as experienced pilots, are trained again and again to recognise, react, and use the tools we are trained to use to help make the right decision if something like this happens. The simple fact is there are different risks to different scenarios. A rejected take off or a continued take off carry these differences, each one has it's risks. See what I mean? No need to be dramatic...
To my other detractors...I did say "Rant Over" (I just get so tired of hearing all the Ooohs and Ahhhs when a well trained crew does what they are supposed to do when something like this happens) Yell at me all you want, but it's misdirected. Your energy should be focused on the bone heads who think it's ok to threaten lives when they drag their carry on off in an evacuation.
Rant number 2 over...

[Chaxterium]

Your energy should be focused on the bone heads who think it's ok to threaten lives when they drag their carry on off in an evacuation.
Rant number 2 over...

Agreed. But I can't agree with your point about the "Ooohs and Ahhhs" referring to the crew simply doing what they're trained for. Yes, we are trained for these scenarios. However when a crew performs as well as they did, and helps prevent injury or loss of life, they damn well deserved to be praised. This helps to reinforce the needs for professionalism and synergy in our day-to-day operations.

FYI, according to raw ADS-B data the reject was called at 78 knots.


http://tinyurl.com/p9jmgmw

[GRK2]

Chax...like I said...My Rant! Others are entitled to their opinions... Interesting ADS you have there...any idea why that heading changed almost 180 degrees near the reject speed? (Am I reading that right?)
Cheers.