BA777 Fire KLAS

[3WE]

...blah blah blah? I beg to differ. ...

Just remember, in this instance:

-No one jumped into a pool of Jet-A (located next to an existing fire).
-No one jumped in front of a big spinning, actively-sucking, "open-blade" fan.
-No one died.
-A lot of folks were spared a LONG delay in getting their carry-on bags.

It would seem that procedure worked well.

[3WE]

...the media. they are not here to report stories. they are here to make money. you make money by attracting readers/watchers/listeners. you attract readers/watchers/listeners by loud, sensational headlines and tag lines...if you don't like it, don't watch/listen/read the "news."

...and the sad ironing that the good old fashioned, fact-checked, print media organizations are dying rapidly as we see what links Yahoo/Google chose to show us (ranked by highly efficient click count statistics), and DVR the evening news to skip over the commercial breaks.

...and let's not even get into infobabes, cut-throat competition and how many super-smart, fat or ugly news anchors we have...

[3WE]

you have now admitted your ignorance of the media. they are not here to report stories. they are here to make money. you make money by attracting readers/watchers/listeners. you attract readers/watchers/listeners by loud, sensational headlines and tag lines. once you've drawn them in, you can bury the truth in the story somewhere and your "ethics" are intact.

if you don't like it, don't watch/listen/read the "news."

Journalists used to have a strong objective to cover "both" sides of the story, be factually accurate and be somewhat educational.

For that reason, I will continue to complain on aviation fora about their increasingly inaccurate reporting...

Indeed, that doesn't do much to address the issue, but it does make me feel better.

[TeeVee]

To print a headline implying that a fire suppression system "didn't work" here is the nadir of bad journalism. Period. End of story.

you have now admitted your ignorance of the media. they are not here to report stories. they are here to make money. you make money by attracting readers/watchers/listeners. you attract readers/watchers/listeners by loud, sensational headlines and tag lines. once you've drawn them in, you can bury the truth in the story somewhere and your "ethics" are intact.

if you don't like it, don't watch/listen/read the "news."

[Evan]

I know you love to use those fancy big airplane words Evan, but squibs DO NOT extinguish a fire. Squibs release the agent from the fire bottles.

I'm sure they were looking at a fire indication but have no way to know it was uncontained (other than firing both squibs not extinguishing it).

Fixed (For those who need the specific verb to make out my meaning despite the obvious causal relationship between 'squib' and 'release the agent' that extinguishes).

[BoeingBobby]

I'm sure they were looking at a fire indication but have no way to know it was uncontained (other than both squibs not extinguishing it).

I know you love to use those fancy big airplane words Evan, but squibs DO NOT extinguish a fire. Squibs release the agent from the fire bottles.

[sjwk]

Yes, it was hard to tell if it really was a pole, or just artifact in the clouds behind. Looking at the video again, I've concluded it is on the end of a white beam against a white cloud. Not sure if it is a camera, or a hose mounting.

Certainly use of a remote camera, whether on a stick or a drone would make sense, get views from above/below, get in close without risking personnel. I guess an anchored camera would be safer than a drone that could get blown about by updrafts.

[B757300]

No? This thing:
Can't quite tell if it's on a wire/pole but looks like a drone. Definitely associated with the emergency crews though.

From that picture, you can see that there is a white colored pole which it appears to be attached to. Probably a boom from one of the fire fighting vehicles.

[sjwk]

I cannot spot a drone flying anywhere in the video. I looked for one several times after you mentioned seeing one. I do not think it would be legal for someone to be flying a drone in that area, unless it was associated with the emergency crews?

No? This thing:
Can't quite tell if it's on a wire/pole but looks like a drone. Definitely associated with the emergency crews though.

[Gabriel]

6?

I'd say that until you don't have confirmation that the Eng#2 is off, you have 4.

[UALdave]

I'm glad that everyone is alive, but why do so many passenger get injured going down the emergency evacuation slides in situations like this? Are they going down them in an unsafe manner, or should the slides be re-engineerd to prevent these injuries?

[Rick G]

*Sigh*

As usual, people had to stop and get their carry on luggage. One of these days, people are going to die because of that.

https://twitter.com/DomworthNo1/status/641401647059472385

If you look @ the end of the video, you can see the left engine is mangled.

It looks like a major uncontained engine failure.

And is that a drone hovering at the very end of the video?

I cannot spot a drone flying anywhere in the video. I looked for one several times after you mentioned seeing one. I do not think it would be legal for someone to be flying a drone in that area, unless it was associated with the emergency crews?

[Evan]

No...you don't get to bash the current procedures (Mr. Procedure Lover).

If you want the FA's to be able to declare the evacuation, then you need N1 gauges and a lights to confirm that the fuel is cut off to the engines located in all the galleys, and some additional procedures, decision trees and memory checklists and much training for the FA's to confirm that the engines are spooled down, and the fuel flow is off (with a number of additional type-specific nuances and contingencies for when the galley-located N1 and fuel flow gauges have their wires cut by the thrown compressor blade or the ensuing fire...)

Sure, I LOVE using the fundamental over-riding concept that airplane fires spread fast, you only have seconds and need to get the hell out sooner as opposed to later...

...but the procedures are not without their benefits and are not bureaucratic!

It's all about whether you blindly follow procedure or whether you let fundamental concepts sometimes become involved in making sound decisions and actions.

So, what? You see towering flames and dense smoke over the wing and smell acrid toxic fumes BUT you should be careful that the other engine is fully spooled down etc. blah blah blah? I beg to differ. Fire trumps all. FA's are already trained to take initiative if the crew is incapacitated. They are trained to open the exits only if fire is not present there and to check for hazards before sending pax down the chutes. If they see what we are seeing in those videos, they should at the very least get everyone up and moving toward the exits, and if they can't get an immediate evac order from the flight deck over the interphone, they should initiate it there and then. I'm certain the delay was due to the flightcrew not being fully aware of the situation.

[3WE]

But the cabin crew could clearly see it was time to get out (and not remain seated with your seat belt fastened). They probably should not have waited for the captain's order to begin the evacuation. That's where the bureaucracy comes in.

No...you don't get to bash the current procedures (Mr. Procedure Lover).

If you want the FA's to be able to declare the evacuation, then you need N1 gauges and a lights to confirm that the fuel is cut off to the engines located in all the galleys, and some additional procedures, decision trees and memory checklists and much training for the FA's to confirm that the engines are spooled down, and the fuel flow is off (with a number of additional type-specific nuances and contingencies for when the galley-located N1 and fuel flow gauges have their wires cut by the thrown compressor blade or the ensuing fire...)

Sure, I LOVE using the fundamental over-riding concept that airplane fires spread fast, you only have seconds and need to get the hell out sooner as opposed to later...

...but the procedures are not without their benefits and are not bureaucratic!

It's all about whether you blindly follow procedure or whether you let fundamental concepts sometimes become involved in making sound decisions and actions.

[elaw]

Just saying.

Saying != proving.