BA fire in Las Vegas

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

I read a piece this morning from a Guardian journalist who was on the plane who commented on this. His point was that in a panic people do not necessarily think straight. You don't know how you'd respond until it happens. Easy sitting behind a keyboard to imagine what you'd do.

Was he one those seen carrying his luggage ? Is he trying to get his excuses in first?

People who do this have been found NOT to have paid any attention to cabin crew and emergency briefings before departure this blasé attitude will cost someone their life some day. Even after 30 years of flying I still pay attention to the briefing because some day I might need it.

irishgeo

Well done to the fire crews. Fire out in 4mins.

markpb

Locker10a wrote: »

I'm with you on this , if I'm ever in a situation like this flight and another passenger blocks me or others by retrieving their luggage they will receive from me a kick of the greatest force I can fathom.

And, with all due respect, your actions could cause a bigger problem than the people getting their bags did in the first case.

arubex

Deleted User wrote: »

There NEVER is any justifiable reason to STOP in an emergency, they do it in front of me I'm barging them out of the way. Their convenience is not worth someone else's life.

It's not a nuisance it's ignorance and potentially life endangering.

Barge on ahead then. I gave an explanation of why people take their baggage with them; they're thinking beyond the immediate situation to 'how am I going to eat for the next week?'. Whether that's rational or not depends on your frame of reference; they don't particularly care about your plight, why should they?

I didn't defend it, though I'd probably do it myself.

Have you ever presented yourself at an embassy with no identity or travel documents?

eatmyshorts

arubex wrote: »

Have you ever presented yourself at an embassy with no identity or travel documents?

As I previously said, keep your passport, wallet and phone in your pocket for take off and landing. A simple solution. It's really not that difficult!

elastico

arubex wrote: »

Have you ever presented yourself at an embassy with no identity or travel documents?

I am sure its a fairly common occurrence.

I am sure this baggage thing is relative anyway.

If your bag is 4 rows back in the wrong direction then you won't be going there.

If you are in an aisle seat and the 2 behind are shouting to keep moving I doubt you would get a chance to stop and take the bags out.

Maybe some people just hung back, let the crowd off and then took their bags.

Or had smaller back packs under their seats.

Dardania

cml387 wrote: »

Hearing the tape this morning, was one of the flight crew from Dublin perchance?

wondered that too - the second voice announcing they're evacuating was much flatter than the first voice.

CRM at play...

Dardania

irishgeo wrote: »

One reports says they opened one of the rear doors on the fire side of the plane and smoke started coming in so everyone had to go out the front.

Why open the door in the first place. Smoke is a bigger killer than fire.

there may not have been smoke outside before opening - maybe opening the door caused a negative pressure that then sucked the smoke in?

Or maybe the cabin crew didn't check...

No I haven't had to do it, my friend has and he said it was grand after he reported the passport stolen to the police it was straight forward.

I however always keep my passport and wallet and phone on me when travelling through an airport and on the plane.

Anyway I've saidy piece and I still stand by every word of it.

Well done to the BA crew they did a fantastic job. Minor injuries only considering the extent of the fire.

pfurey101

irishgeo wrote: »

Well done to the fire crews. Fire out in 4mins.

Which probably explains why the wing fuel tanks didn't catch fire. It must have been a close one timewise, I'd imagine!

cml387

I presume this was a Trent engine.
Is this engine causing more than it's fair share of problems?

Dardania

cml387 wrote: »

I presume this was a Trent engine.
Is this engine causing more than it's fair share of problems?

GE90: http://avherald.com/h?article=48c10434&opt=0

eatmyshorts

cml387 wrote: »

I presume this was a Trent engine.
Is this engine causing more than it's fair share of problems?

Why presume that?

cml387

Dardania wrote: »

GE90: http://avherald.com/h?article=48c10434&opt=0

That's me leaping to conclusions:o

martinsvi

regarding the luggage - I think the factor here was that with only 157 pax on board this 777 was pretty empty thus allowing people to move about pretty quickly even with their bags. Once you see one guy taking his bag, the next one will follow, it becomes herd instinct. With more people, there would be pushing from those closer to fire and I don't think we would end up seeing so many bags carried out

I agree with eatmyshorts, I condemn such behavior but Its somewhat understandable

martinsvi

just looking at the pictures, I don't understand how an engine fire could cause such damage in front of the engine in the fuselage? Are we sure it's an engine fire and not cargo fire?

Locker10a

martinsvi wrote: »

regarding the luggage - I think the factor here was that with only 157 pax on board this 777 was pretty empty thus allowing people to move about pretty quickly even with their bags. Once you see one guy taking his bag, the next one will follow, it becomes herd instinct. With more people, there would be pushing from those closer to fire and I don't think we would end up seeing so many bags carried out

I agree with eatmyshorts, I condemn such behavior but Its somewhat understandable

Excellent point ! 159 pax so in the cabin that meant 11 cabin crew to direct the evacuation of 159 people! In another scenario say a 737 that was fully booked, let's say 180+ passengers and only 4 cabin crew, in this scenario things would undoubtly be different, and had the fire service not been as speedy as they were......well I'll let you imagine that for yourselves

Frynge

martinsvi wrote: »

just looking at the pictures, I don't understand how an engine fire could cause such damage in front of the engine in the fuselage? Are we sure it's an engine fire and not cargo fire?

My thoughts exactly, the fuselage seems to have suffered major damage and the engine nacelle seems relatively unscathed.

cml387

Only speculation, but an uncontained engine failure would shoot out burning engine bits that would casue damage like that.

martinsvi

cml387 wrote: »

Only speculation, but an uncontained engine failure would shoot out burning engine bits that would casue damage like that.

here, I googled "uncontained engine failure" for you, none of the pictures look like this:

pic from avherald

cowboyBuilder

Scary to think this fire could have started while plane was airborne ..

eatmyshorts

martinsvi wrote: »

just looking at the pictures, I don't understand how an engine fire could cause such damage in front of the engine in the fuselage? Are we sure it's an engine fire and not cargo fire?

Engine cowl damage can be seen in this pic.
And that's the Captain and FO walking away on the left of the photo!

A high energy turbine disc separation could easily puncture the cowl and debris would hit the wing and fuselage causing secondary damage.
From the pics available, the main fire was definitely in the fuselage area. It's possible that ejected debris pierced the centre fuel tank in that area, resulting in a fuel fire.
A LAS-LGW flight may have a little fuel in the centre tanks, but not much. The centre tank only starts to fill after the wing tanks are full, and they hold about 31000 kgs each depending on temperature etc.

martinsvi

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Engine cowl damage can be seen in this pic.
And that's the Captain and FO walking away on the left of the photo!

A high energy turbine disc separation could easily puncture the cowl and debris would hit the wing and fuselage causing secondary damage.
From the pics available, the main fire was definitely in the fuselage area. It's possible that ejected debris pierced the centre fuel tank in that area, resulting in a fuel fire.
A LAS-LGW flight may have a little fuel in the centre tanks, but not much. The centre tank only starts to fill after the wing tanks are full, and they hold about 31000 kgs each depending on temperature etc.

oh wow now that's a completely different perspective, that cleared my doubts then - from the other side engine looks completely intact, so bizarre

asteroids over berlin

Jeez that looks like one seriously close call. Where is the fuel tank on a plane? i thought it was under the wings - where that big hole is? scary

duskyjoe

There must have been say at least 60ton of fuel on board. They are so lucky there wasn't a massive fire ball. Well done to the crew. As for the passengers or guests as some companies deem, wandering around with their luggage.....its just gob smacking.

Tenger

The baggage issue is always going to be there.
People don't think straight in an evacuation. For many people an evacuation is an unreal situation.
Passengers are almost programmed into going for their bags when getting off a plane......in an evacuation its almost like muscle memory, "stand up, open bin, walk to door"

There is the selfish mindset but there is also the automaton mindset at play here.

As Locker10A pointed out crew cannot police baggage at the top of a slide as this would cause more of an obstruction whether through arguments or a pile of bags blocking an aisle/exit.


Re the flight crew walking away....fair play, hi-viz and hat on. can't see if the Pax list is in his pocket however!!!

elastico

pfurey101 wrote: »

Which probably explains why the wing fuel tanks didn't catch fire. It must have been a close one timewise, I'd imagine!

There is a little device on the supply pipe to my oil burner. If it gets hot it melts and kills the oil supply.

I'll take a guess aircraft have similar pieces of primitive technology starving the fire of fuel. Or something for the cockpit to cut the supply.

I'd also hazard the fuel tanks themselves are away from the source of the turbine and very well insulated from catching fire.

ProfessorPlum

The crew won't have the pax list - they will have the load sheet and NOTOC though!

By the looks of things, they were very lucky they didn't get airborne given the damage done in the 4 minutes it took the fire services to put it out.

elastico

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Scary to think this fire could have started while plane was airborne ..

I am not sure it could, at a wind speed equivalent to ~500mph I doubt it would ever get started, ever try lighting a BBQ in a gale?

bucketybuck

duskyjoe wrote: »

As for the passengers or guests as some companies deem, wandering around with their luggage.....its just gob smacking.

Is too much being made of this?

Personally I always have my carry on luggage under the seat in front or at my feet, though of course I usually have a bag rather than a travel case. But if I was to evacuate, of course I'm going to take the millisecond to grab the bag as I stand up. Even if it was in the locker above we are still talking milliseconds for me to grab it and run.

If somebody was fumbling around trying to actually locate the bag and getting in the way thats a different matter, but how many of those people pictured simply grabbed a bag that was right there?