Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BA777 Fire KLAS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    The bottles are housed in the fuselage, not near the engines (and opposite the #1 side) so thermal venting due to a fire would not occur until the heat from the fire reached that area. In that case you would get DISCH 1 and 2 lights and the same EICAS indications. If you hadn't already fired them manually, you would know they vented.
    Do you have the QRH of all airliners or what?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Do you have the QRH of all airliners or what?
      And plenty of time to reference them at 0 kts and FL 0.5 without an active "engine" fire.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • From AvHerald:
        On Oct 6th 2015 the NTSB reported that first examination of the engine revealed that the stage 8-10 spool in the high pressure compressor (HPC) had failed liberating fragments that breached the engine case and cowling. Additional pieces of the HPC were found inside the engine and sent for metallurgic examination. The fracture began in the stage 8 disk web.

        That's the same section as the engines affected by the existing AD. GE has already said this engine had parts not affected by the AD, but maybe that AD needs to be expanded...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          Do you have the QRH of all airliners or what?
          That's pretty universal basic logic. If you are seeing discharge lights (and messages if you have EICAS/ECAM) and you haven't turned the fire handle, that's most likely a thermal discharge. But, as I said, they are placed far away from the nozzles/initial source of heat.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            So squib is the term you use to look cool on the aviation forum while solenoid is generic, but makes you look like a layman?
            Squib and solenoid are two different devices. The squib is an explosive device, while the solenoid is mechanical. That being said, he probably should have made a comment explaining what a squib is in the post.

            Here's a link to a Youtube video of a 737 fire extinguisher squib being fired. Really the only two points you need to see are the first 5 seconds and from 1:49 to 1:52 or so. Let's just say that video editing isn't the video poster's strong point.
            The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              That's pretty universal basic logic. If you are seeing discharge lights (and messages if you have EICAS/ECAM) and you haven't turned the fire handle, that's most likely a thermal discharge. But, as I said, they are placed far away from the nozzles/initial source of heat.
              So, the answer is no, you DON'T have a 777 QRH?

              Comment


              • Looks like BA decided to repair it(!!)

                http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...rran-fly-again

                I've don't ever recall an airline repairing a plane damaged to this extent! Especially a 17 year old one.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by hongmng View Post
                  Looks like BA decided to repair it(!!)

                  http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...rran-fly-again

                  I've don't ever recall an airline repairing a plane damaged to this extent! Especially a 17 year old one.
                  Qantas done the very same thing. Many people think it was to preserve there statistic of no hull losses. See the below link

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
                    Qantas done the very same thing. Many people think it was to preserve there statistic of no hull losses. See the below link

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1
                    What a trainwreck. I wonder if they also managed to fix the captain and return him to service.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X