Emirates 777 on fire at Dubai

tnegun

Just came across this https://lovindubai.com/dubai/breaking-an-emirates-777-just-crashed-at-dubai-airport confirmed on Skynews and Twitter now too. Seems to have been a fire before take off and aircraft was evacuated.

1123heavy

Untitled.png

I've read it was EK 521 arriving in from Trivandram (Truvananthapuram), rumours are saying a gear collapse followed by a spin on the tarmac.

JCX BXC

Featuring on Sky News . Apparently crash landed.

"Worlds busiest airport by passenger numbers" Ahm not quiet yet.

1123heavy

The whole ceiling seems to have burnt off, I'm not sure how to get the image to show in my post without the link but it seems serious.

It's also 49°C in Dubai right now, the shock of a crash plus going from an air conditioned cabin to such a harsh climate makes you feel especially for the young and old in that situation.

tnegun

Seems it was EK521 alright looks like a Quantas was evacuated around the same time too causing some confusion

Tabnabs

Social media starting to light up with reports and photos

1123heavy

Reports are now saying all are safe thank God.

Shannon757

Is that not an A380?

tnegun

Shannon757 wrote: »

Is that not an A380?

A6-EMV comes back as a 777-31H

January

Shannon757 wrote: »

Is that not an A380?

It's very clearly not an A380.

Captain Chaos

Shannon757 wrote: »

Is that not an A380?

The 380 is in the first pic with the burning 777 behind it.

Larbre34

Shannon757 wrote: »

Is that not an A380?

No, the registry on the tail indicates a 777-31H model.

Hopefully everyone is ok, thats a bit of a shocker for such a prestigous airline on their own backyard. Having been through Dubai a few times id say that will cause unimaginable disruption, it seems to be the main hub for European budget travel to south east Asia and Oceania.

Captain Chaos

tnegun wrote: »

A6-EMV comes back as a 777-31H

Think it's A6-EMW. Not V

FalconGirl

Footage of the crash land. Amazing that everyone got off safely given how quick the smoke seemed to blacken.

https://youtu.be/7lyjRefyufg

Larbre34

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Think it's A6-EMW. Not V

Correct, same model in any case.

Captain Chaos

Larbre34 wrote: »

Correct, same model in any case.

For hull write off listing purposes really, for those who keep track of those things.

Just incase someone says they saw EMV flying around later in the week whne it's supposed to be a heap in a hanger being investigated.

Shannon757

Captain Chaos wrote: »

The 380 is in the first pic with the burning 777 behind it.

That's where I went wrong

skywanderer

Considering the rapid rate of growth and continuous expansion of Emirates then some type of incident was always going to happen. It seems like they handled it professionally and I hope there was no injuries. Emirates are very safe and I look forward to reading the investigative report in a few months to see what caused this. This incident will cause airport congestion around the globe.

Tabnabs

Check out this video footage of an explosion and the roof panel flying into the air

https://twitter.com/ATEEKSTER/status/760777254045618176

martinsvi

from Avherald: An Emirates Airlines Boeing 777-300, registration A6-EMW performing flight EK-521 from Thiruvananthapuram (India) to Dubai (United Arab Emirates) with 275 people on board, was on final approach to Dubai's runway 12L at 12:41L (08:41Z) but attempted to go around from low height. The aircraft however did not climb, but after retracting the gear touched down on the runway and burst into flames. Passengers are being reported evacuated and safe. The aircraft burned down completely.

I understand there was windshear reported, glad everyone, reportedly, got out

Shannon757

Tabnabs wrote: »

Check out this video footage of an explosion and the roof panel flying into the air

https://twitter.com/ATEEKSTER/status/760777254045618176

Amazing no one was hurt.

LiamaDelta

Tabnabs wrote:

Check out this video footage of an explosion and the roof panel flying into the air

Looks more like the emergency slide rather than a roof panel.

Dardania

martinsvi wrote: »

from Avherald: An Emirates Airlines Boeing 777-300, registration A6-EMW performing flight EK-521 from Thiruvananthapuram (India) to Dubai (United Arab Emirates) with 275 people on board, was on final approach to Dubai's runway 12L at 12:41L (08:41Z) but attempted to go around from low height. The aircraft however did not climb, but after retracting the gear touched down on the runway and burst into flames. Passengers are being reported evacuated and safe. The aircraft burned down completely.

I understand there was windshear reported, glad everyone, reportedly, got out

DOes this sound like maybe:

windshear prompted go round (as you say too)
they indicated TOGA type setting
retracted gear
not enough power came
impact?

If so, thats a violent landing...relieving the outcome that happened...

Edit: someone on airliners.net continuing that train of thought: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339493&start=50#p19014969

In case of go around, do the pilots need to wait with retracting gear until the aircraft reaches positive rate? Or does that apply to take-off only?

vicwatson

FalconGirl wrote: »

Footage of the crash land. Amazing that everyone got off safely given how quick the smoke seemed to blacken.

https://youtu.be/7lyjRefyufg

Video 30 seconds long and no sign of a fire brigade, is that normal? I'd have thought every split second counted in these situations

BonkeyDonker

vicwatson wrote: »

Video 30 seconds long and no sign of a fire brigade, is that normal? I'd have thought every split second counted in these situations

I think the standard is to be able to reach any part of the airport facilities within three minutes. 30 seconds is still firmly within the "Oh ****" time frame.

Nibs05

https://mobile.twitter.com/dpa/status/760792290726215680

Not much left

It's amazing how quickly it was evacuated

Larbre34

Hmmm. Shurley shome mishtakes there, pretty difficult to get a modern airliner to do, in sequence, what is alleged (abort landing, retract gear without commencing full power climb out) without the plane itself resisting.

Again, thankfully all souls evacuated safely, testament to modern training and equipment, the cabin crew deserve medals even if the flight crew have a lot of explaining to do....

strandsman

1123heavy wrote: »

The whole ceiling seems to have burnt off, I'm not sure how to get the image to show in my post without the link but it seems serious.

It's also 49°C in Dubai right now, the shock of a crash plus going from an air conditioned cabin to such a harsh climate makes you feel especially for the young and old in that situation.

are you for real???? i would think 49 deg would be the least bit problematic considering what just happened

Tow

strandsman wrote: »

are you for real???? i would think 49 deg would be the least bit problematic considering what just happened

Never stepped out on the airport apron in Dubai?

strandsman

Tow wrote: »

Never stepped out on the airport apron in Dubai?

nope, have you ever been in a burning airplane?

1123heavy

strandsman wrote: »

are you for real???? i would think 49 deg would be the least bit problematic considering what just happened

Yes I'm quite "for real". Some people are very fragile ... breathing issues etc and added in the situation that it is, a panic attack can seem very likely for a week traveller with medical conditions. It will hit you very hard having been sat in an air conditioned cabin for over 3 and a half hours. Many wouldn't bat an eyelid but some will be very fragile.

And also, everything combined, if it is indeed true that a GA was called but the aircraft didn't lift in time ... with it being 49°C, climb performance is significantly reduced and it could likely have been a factor in the aircraft taking a bit longer to produce the necessary lift, therefore it would have lagged in starting to climb.

1123heavy

strandsman wrote: »

nope, have you ever been in a burning airplane?

A burning airplane in a 49°C environment and you think the heat wouldn't affect anyone, interesting :eek:

Larbre34

I think its fair to say the unorthodox touchdown and cartoon like slide around the apron resulting in an engine sheering off would have tested any dicky tickers long before the heat, ambient or otherwise, became an issue for the passengers

strandsman

1123heavy wrote: »

Yes I'm quite "for real". Some people are very fragile ... breathing issues etc and added in the situation that it is, a panic attack can seem very likely for a week traveller with medical conditions. It will hit you very hard having been sat in an air conditioned cabin for over 3 and a half hours. Many wouldn't bat an eyelid but some will be very fragile.

And also, everything combined, if it is indeed true that a GA was called but the aircraft didn't lift in time ... with it being 49°C, climb performance is significantly reduced and it could likely have been a factor in the aircraft taking a bit longer to produce the necessary lift, therefore it would have lagged in starting to climb.

no need for any further investigation needed, the 1 sentence detailed report here should be sent to Boeing.

1123heavy

strandsman wrote: »

no need for any further investigation needed, the 1 sentence detailed report here should be sent to Boeing.

Lay off with your sarcasm. I did NOT state that is exactly what happened, I stated a possibility based on the premises that the rumours about a GA are true. If you don't like people discussing things, giving opinions and ideas on a forum, well you're in the wrong place buddy.

martinsvi

guys can you take your emotions someplace else?

I've never stepped out of a burning plane in +49°C, neither have you, no need to argue about it. However what I have seen is people reluctantly leaving aircraft in very humid -33°C with first people disembarking the plane suddenly deciding to push back in to the plane to dig out some extra clothing from their bags and take care of their screaming babies (who needs airbridges in extreme weather, right?) So yes, extreme temperatures will always be a factor affecting human behavior and decision making

Mahony0509

Most likely cause is a failed go around, due to windsheer. ADS-B data shows they tried to climb just before crashing.

Kevski

Just a thought but would there likely have been a different outcome to this incident if the runway had been bordered by grass? If the plane had spun onto grass then the wheels could potentially have dug in and pitched the plane into the ground?

Basically, is it safer to have a runway bordered by asphalt/Tarmac rather than grass?

martinsvi

Kevski wrote: »

Just a thought but would there likely have been a different outcome to this incident if the runway had been bordered by grass? If the plane had spun onto grass then the wheels could potentially have dug in and pitched the plane into the ground?

Basically, is it safer to have a runway bordered by asphalt/Tarmac rather than grass?

2 things - 1) at this stage from the information we have we can deduct that landing gear was retracted
2) it is generally believed that tarmac is the best and safest place where to put down a plane in the event of landing gear failure because it is much smoother. We think of grass as of something soft and nice but for aircraft it is bumpy, slippery and unpredictable. It can throw section of aircraft back in the air, cause it to break apart and so on. Particulary when considering light aircraft gear problems, there are strong statistics indicating that most light planes who belly-land on tarmac can fly again after repairs. Most lights landing on grass end up with twisted fuselages and are written off

Kevski

martinsvi wrote: »

2 things - 1) at this stage from the information we have we can deduct that landing gear was retracted
2) it is generally believed that tarmac is the best and safest place where to put down a plane in the event of landing gear failure because it is much smoother. We think of grass as of something soft and nice but for aircraft it is bumpy, slippery and unpredictable. It can throw section of aircraft back in the air, cause it to break apart and so on. Particulary when considering light aircraft gear problems, there are strong statistics indicating that most light planes who belly-land on tarmac can fly again after repairs. Most lights landing on grass end up with twisted fuselages and are written off

Interesting to know, thanks!

smurfjed

That's the 3rd B777 crash landing where everyone walked away, says a lot for the modern aircraft design criteria.

duskyjoe

Mahony0509 wrote: »

Most likely cause is a failed go around, due to windsheer. ADS-B data shows they tried to climb just before crashing.

My logic too. Possible mis handled low go around. As per the old adage do not change the configuration of the aircraft until clear of the wind shear. Pure speculation on my part.

Yet again there's always the clowns to be seen running about the ramp with their baggage. Airlines should have a caveat on their carriage policies, in the unlikely event of a passenger evacuation, passengers evacuating with their carry on luggage will be severely fined and banned from air travel. Thank heavens people survived as the aircraft now is all but a burnt out carcass.

duskyjoe

smurfjed wrote: »

That's the 3rd B777 crash landing where everyone walked away, says a lot for the modern aircraft design criteria.

and luck.......

mickdw

duskyjoe wrote: »

and luck.......

It must be said that the 777 appears to have a very strong core in that they are not breaking up on crash landing.
The San Francisco crash was freaky in how it held together.

Locker10a

duskyjoe wrote: »

Mahony0509 wrote: »

Most likely cause is a failed go around, due to windsheer. ADS-B data shows they tried to climb just before crashing.

My logic too. Possible mis handled low go around. As per the old adage do not change the configuration of the aircraft until clear of the wind shear. Pure speculation on my part.

Yet again there's always the clowns to be seen running about the ramp with their baggage. Airlines should have a caveat on their carriage policies, in the unlikely event of a passenger evacuation, passengers evacuating with their carry on luggage will be severely fined and banned from air travel. Thank heavens people survived as the aircraft now is all but a burnt out carcass.

Or over head lockers should be locked by the cabin crew during take off and landing, with the new fancy cabin designs be boeing etc. they could easily invent such a mechanism

murphaph

smurfjed wrote: »

That's the 3rd B777 crash landing where everyone walked away, says a lot for the modern aircraft design criteria.

Yeah that would have been a different story 30 years ago. Quite remarkable that nobody perished.

duskyjoe

I think they will know very quickly the cause of the accident. An unstable approach followed by a baulked landing? If the engines were at idle at 500ft agl and wind shear encountered re temps this will tell a lot how events unfolded. Thank bloody God of what ever religion is out there that this wasn't a massive loss of life. Looking at the aircraft is now plain scary to see. Safe flying all.

Simon Gruber Says

Locker10a wrote: »

Or over head lockers should be locked by the cabin crew during take off and landing, with the new fancy cabin designs be boeing etc. they could easily invent such a mechanism

They could, but while one lock may not weigh much, a couple hundred would weigh quite a bit. In an era where some airlines don't even have seat pockets anymore, it'd be hard to implement because of cost. Not to mention the research and safety testing costs. They'd probably have to re test the entire overhead unit for impact tests with the added weight/parts.

martinsvi

duskyjoe wrote: »

I think they will know very quickly the cause of the accident. An unstable approach followed by a baulked landing? If the engines were at idle at 500ft agl and wind shear encountered re temps this will tell a lot how events unfolded. Thank bloody God of what ever religion is out there that this wasn't a massive loss of life. Looking at the aircraft is now plain scary to see. Safe flying all.

I wouldn't be too sure about the "quickness" of the investigation, if this will be another case of fuel starvation for whatever reason or bits and parts not doing what they're supposed to be doing, pinpointing down the cause can turn out to be more difficult than we would hope.

Simon Gruber Says wrote: »

They could, but while one lock may not weigh much, a couple hundred would weigh quite a bit. In an era where some airlines don't even have seat pockets anymore, it'd be hard to implement because of cost. Not to mention the research and safety testing costs. They'd probably have to re test the entire overhead unit for impact tests with the added weight/parts.

I imagine locked bins will cause more panic and confusion than people just garbing their stuff.. then when you consider delays that might be caused during normal ops because a lock or two are stuck or broken.. very unappealing. If ~300 people can get their bags and get out of a burning 777 so quickly without leaving anyone behind, I honestly can't see any reason why the industry should change anything

Simon Gruber Says

Reports that one of the firefighters responding to the crash lost their life. Sad news. RIP

[URL] http://m.thenational.ae/uae/firefighter-dies-responding-to-emirates-plane-fire-at-dubai-airport[/URL]

Gaoth Laidir

OMDB 030900Z 11021KT 3000 BLDU NSC 49/07 Q0993 WS ALL RWY TEMPO 35015KT 1500

At 49 °C and 993 QNH the density altitude was 4635 feet. This for an airport at an elevation of just 62 feet amsl. Not likely to have factored much compared to say windshear but at that height a few metres' loss of lift could make the difference.

RIP to the firefighter.