BA 777 on fire at LAS

[CaviAck]

I must be doing something wrong because I can't find seat 24H on any of the BA seat maps. I was trying to get a mental picture of his surroundings. :?:

Looks like the lav in the 3 class 772 to me hahah.

 

[jb747]

I don't see it as proof of that at all. Are you seriously saying that a younger less experienced pilot would not have handled the situation as well?

I suspect a bit of tongue in cheek. I've got a lot of respect for Nigel, and they don't hand out heavy commands easily. There would be little difference between an of their Captains in this sort of event.

 

[jb747]

1. This is the reason why I don't change into PJs until after takeoff.

We've discussed this....

2. I'm guessing that the aircraft is a write-off?

I'd expect so. Any time fire is involved, it makes the entire repair much harder.

3. Amazing that the fire crews got as much foam onto the fire as quickly as they did!

Their performance was impressive. Fast on the scene, and knocked it down very quickly.

4. Do the cabin crew direct passengers as to which direction to run once people are on the ground or is it a free for all? I only ask because there are lots of dangers around when running away from the aircraft.

Whilst part of the procedure is to try to 'assemble the passengers away from the aircraft', the reality is that the crew are all on the aircraft until the passengers are off....

5. When this occurred does ATC or whoever stop all aircraft ground movements?

For ATC keeping control of the overall situation is quite an exercise. They may be going to lose all of their firefighting capability, and could have emergency vehicles all over the place, so stopping everything until they have a full picture is sensible.

6. What does ATC do with aircraft already on approach to landing and aircraft already rolling down the runway for takeoff?

As you can hear, aircraft on approach (to the parallel I think) were being sent around. They may be able to put them onto another runway, or might have to send them to another airport. For all aircraft in the air, fuel is a finite resource, so you need things to start happening immediately. Aircraft on the roll (on a close parallel), might be told to stop, but whether they do or not depends on how fast they are at the time (and even if they hear).

 

[jb747]

2. Quite likely but QF 32 shows what can be done if they have the will.

Whilst Nancy was very large repair, it was basically panel beating. There was no fire damage to the fuselage or wing (and the engine was a throw away).

 

[Mal]

I must be doing something wrong because I can't find seat 24H on any of the BA seat maps. I was trying to get a mental picture of his surroundings. :?:

British Airways Boeing 777-200ER 40J/24W/219Y Seat Map

 

[TonyHancock]

British Airways Boeing 777-200ER 40J/24W/219Y Seat Map

Thank You. I should have known the BA site would be wrong, or in this case not list this particular config.

Not the best seat then!

 

[Comoman]

Picture of the shredded left engine cowl here:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...77-likely-suffered-uncontained-engine-416536/

 

[Flying Fox]

For ATC keeping control of the overall situation is quite an exercise. They may be going to lose all of their firefighting capability, and could have emergency vehicles all over the place, so stopping everything until they have a full picture is sensible.

With regards to loss of firefighting capability; any idea as to how long it would take for the ARFF to be ready for another incident once they return to their station.

In addition, does an airport have to operate differently knowing that they don't have ARFF available?

 

[Meggsy]

With regards to loss of firefighting capability; any idea as to how long it would take for the ARFF to be ready for another incident once they return to their station.

In addition, does an airport have to operate differently knowing that they don't have ARFF available?

How long is a piece of string? The answer to your question is variable dependent on what quantities of firefighting agent and what types have been expelled, what other equipment has been utilised for example breathing apparatus that may need to be refilled. In Australia, using Sydney ARFF as an example, if all vehicles discharged all water and foam then there is about a 10 minute refill time per vehicle ( x 5 vehicles) and about 30 minutes to recharge Dry Chemical Powder if used. This is based on the assumption that no support services arrived and maintained the water supply for the ARFF vehicles which would not occur in Sydney. Typically ARFF is back to full category within about 30 minutes of make up from an incident.
Your second question is even more complex and varies greatly around the world. Ultimately individual airline policy and I believe the pilot in command has the final say as to whether to land at an airport with reduced or nil ARFF services.
The model for the provision of ARFF varies around the world, for example SIN & HKG have a full category 10 ARFF for each runway where as SYD has a category 10 ARFF for the entire airfield separated into smaller stations, i.e. 2 cat 8 services.
i remember during the ARFF industrial action in the early 1980's that some airlines continued to fly into Sydney, whilst others like BA and the American carriers refused to unless the ARFF was at full category.

 

[Turbo-g]

This is also a time to reflect and be thankful for the experience and control of all the crew on the aircraft. For all those people who've chastised and abused the 'trolley dollies' for not realising their meal tray should be removed or their drinks weren't cold enough-remember- we are paying them to be our guide in getting out of the aircraft quickly and safely, and subsequently their offer of assistance in the air when we are NOT in an emergency.

Having a background in emergency response i will always show my respect by watching and listening to my flight emergency briefing. Muscle memory plays it's part and from first hand experience seeing and doing something 100 times over only helps out when the true moment occurs.

Some food for thought..

 

[dk4]

The handbag situation is, I think, quite an interesting one from a psychological angle.

For most handbag users, after many, many repetitions of the behaviour, it would have become an automatic response to grab their handbag as they get up to leave (from any situation). The bag-grab should have become almost instinctive, without any thought, and consuming very little time. (One might argue also - that handbag users entire motion, or action of getting up to leave, has become integrated with the bag-grab.)

So to ask someone to not do something behaviourly instinctive, to think and make a conscious decision to not respond automatically in an emergency situation, would likely slow them down as they processed the thought and actioned the behaviour change. Additionally, the subject is likely to continue to second guess leaving the handbag behind as they exit (as their brain would be subconsciously pinging them for not bag-grabbing), which would distract and slow them down further during the exit process.

So I would posit that it may be better for a handbag user to waste a few microseconds grabbing their handbag* (as an instinctive behaviour) so that they are then primarily focused on exiting the aircraft - because if they are not primarily focused on exiting the aircraft during an emergency they will actually slow down by seconds (not microseconds).

* when the bag is in easy reach at their feet.

 

[JohnM]

The handbag situation is, I think, quite an interesting one from a psychological angle.

For most handbag users, after many, many repetitions of the behaviour, it would have become an automatic response to grab their handbag as they get up to leave (from any situation). The bag-grab should have become almost instinctive, without any thought, and consuming very little time. (One might argue also - that handbag users entire motion, or action of getting up to leave, has become integrated with the bag-grab.)

So to ask someone to not do something behaviourly instinctive, to think and make a conscious decision to not respond automatically in an emergency situation, would likely slow them down as they processed the thought and actioned the behaviour change. Additionally, the subject is likely to continue to second guess leaving the handbag behind as they exit (as their brain would be subconsciously pinging them for not bag-grabbing), which would distract and slow them down further during the exit process.

So I would posit that it may be better for a handbag user to waste a few microseconds grabbing their handbag (as an instinctive behaviour) so that they are then primarily focused on exiting the aircraft - because if they are not primarily focused on exiting the aircraft during an emergency they will actually slow down by seconds (not microseconds).

I think there is a difference between a handbag that is probably at your feet and unloading your 8 kg roll-on from the overhead locker...

 

[dk4]

I think there is a difference between a handbag that is probably at your feet and unloading your 8 kg roll-on from the overhead locker...

:arrow:Obviously. Creating a time delay in an emergency by opening an overhead locker and retrieving an item, is likely more significant than any time saving generated by doing it. (e.g. removing a walking cane or visual-impairment aid, both of which would likely be instinctive retrieval behaviours to anyone using them).

 

[harvyk]

:arrow:Obviously. Creating a time delay in an emergency by opening an overhead locker and retrieving an item, is likely more significant than any time saving generated by doing it. (e.g. removing a walking cane or visual-impairment aid, both of which would likely be instinctive retrieval behaviours to anyone using them).

That's an interesting question, and one that I would love to hear an opinion on from those in the know, in the event that the person requires mobility aids, some examples which spring to mind would be walking sticks, crutches, a wheel chair or a cane, what sort of contingencies are in place during an evacuation to both ensure that the person can a. get to the nearest exit, b. get safely down the slide, c. get away from the slide once at the bottom, and d. not be without vital pieces of equipment once out of the plane?

I could easily imagine something like crutches doing damage to slides (as well as be a danger to others whilst going down).

 

[Denali]

That's an interesting question, and one that I would love to hear an opinion on from those in the know, in the event that the person requires mobility aids, some examples which spring to mind would be walking sticks, crutches, a wheel chair 0.....

I was thinking about this as my last flight had a person who was in a wheelchair and not one of those, its a miracle, I can walk after the flight wheelchairs but she was paraplegic who truly needed assistance.

Its like evacs in my office, I have to tell one staff member to stay at the stairwell until the fire fighters comes to save them. In the event of a real emergency, I don't know if I would stay behind with them or leave.

 

[opusman]

For most handbag users, after many, many repetitions of the behaviour, it would have become an automatic response to grab their handbag as they get up to leave (from any situation).[/I]

Perhaps I've misunderstood how it works, but evacuations do not proceed in a calm, quiet, orderly manner with a polite overhead announcement. There is an extremely loud "EVACUATE! EVACUATE! EVACUATE!" announcement played repeatedly and it is basically get the f*ck out of your seat and get the f*ck out of the plane. Surely the survival instinct should override the instinct to grab those last minute duty free purchases or your favourite DKNY clutch.

 

[jb747]

If you are in a wheelchair, or otherwise immobile, the cabin crew will get you out, even going down the slide with you if necessary. But, they will do this after the main rush of passengers have gone. It won't take long, as long as the entire process isn't slowed by those getting their luggage out of the lockers.!@!

 

[blackcat20]

The handbag situation is, I think, quite an interesting one from a psychological angle.

For most handbag users, after many, many repetitions of the behaviour, it would have become an automatic response to grab their handbag as they get up to leave (from any situation). The bag-grab should have become almost instinctive, without any thought, and consuming very little time. (One might argue also - that handbag users entire motion, or action of getting up to leave, has become integrated with the bag-grab.)

So to ask someone to not do something behaviourly instinctive, to think and make a conscious decision to not respond automatically in an emergency situation, would likely slow them down as they processed the thought and actioned the behaviour change. Additionally, the subject is likely to continue to second guess leaving the handbag behind as they exit (as their brain would be subconsciously pinging them for not bag-grabbing), which would distract and slow them down further during the exit process.

So I would posit that it may be better for a handbag user to waste a few microseconds grabbing their handbag* (as an instinctive behaviour) so that they are then primarily focused on exiting the aircraft - because if they are not primarily focused on exiting the aircraft during an emergency they will actually slow down by seconds (not microseconds).

* when the bag is in easy reach at their feet.

If my bag was at my feet I'd probably grab it too. Its an instinctive habit.

Its also funny that people keep saying "I would/wouldnt do that in this situation" but no one can predict what they would do in that sort of emergency situation.

 

[JohnM]

:arrow:Obviously. Creating a time delay in an emergency by opening an overhead locker and retrieving an item, is likely more significant than any time saving generated by doing it. (e.g. removing a walking cane or visual-impairment aid, both of which would likely be instinctive retrieval behaviours to anyone using them).

I'm afraid you are becoming a little obtuse for me to understand what you have been trying to say. You talk of handbags; the point of real debate is focussed more around the pax evacuating that BA aircraft with hand luggage - ie. items that would have been in the overhead bins.

As far as I am concerned, that is inexcusable - not to mention being in flagrant violation of instructions.

 

[Denali]

....Its also funny that people keep saying "I would/wouldnt do that in this situation" but no one can predict what they would do in that sort of emergency situation.

Yes, Im getting a bit of a mummy wars, Im judging you vibe but when no one is looking, they are guilty of doing the same thing.

Pretty sure some of the FF'ers who are champagne obsessed would be saving the bubbly.