Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 67

Thread: American 767 incident at ORD - right wing burned severely

  1. #21
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I am not so sure about privacy... As an example, when you fly a drone with a camera, the FAA requires that you do not do so over places where people has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I doubt that an airplane cabin qualifies as such. You just should not expect privacy if you are in a public place.
    Are you kidding me? I'm not talking about your legal right to privacy here. I'm talking about having a sense of decency and respect for other people. This voyeuristic age we are living in has largely caused us to overlook that. If you're in a situation like this and people are frightened to the point of panic PLEASE DO NOT MAKE A VIDEO OF THAT. It's so basic...

  2. #22
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    We've seen, I think, three hull losses from uncontained engine failure over the past year. The industry still has a long way to go in dealing with the threat of uncontained engine failure, but containing that kind of energy without heavy armour is probably beyond current technological abilities. Perhaps some nanoscience with come up with a lighter armoured material in the future. For now it seems the only prevention lies in more diligent maintenance and inspection. I hope they are looking into that.

    This is also, I think, the third hull loss we have seen from pooling fires under the engine. It makes me wonder if it might be better SOP to keep a very slow taxi going after an engine failure on the ground, onto a turnout or taxiway, for the 1-2 minutes it takes to get emergency services out there to foam the fuel leakage. It would make a larger mess but it could save an airframe and maybe some lives as well...

  3. #23
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Are you kidding me? I'm not talking about your legal right to privacy here. I'm talking about having a sense of decency and respect for other people. This voyeuristic age we are living in has largely caused us to overlook that.
    I agree, but it is so tough these days to save your LEGAL right to privacy, that the decency and respect you are asking for would be a nice but unexpected privilege. As you explained.

    --- 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 ---

  4. #24
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    This is also, I think, the third hull loss we have seen from pooling fires under the engine. It makes me wonder if it might be better SOP to keep a very slow taxi going after an engine failure on the ground, onto a turnout or taxiway, for the 1-2 minutes it takes to get emergency services out there to foam the fuel leakage. It would make a larger mess but it could save an airframe and maybe some lives as well...
    I don't know if, before making this comment, you saw my post saying almost exactly the same thing.

    --- 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 ---

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Imagine that engine debris had not flown a kilometer away from the aircraft, but cut through it, into the pax!

    People on board were extremely lucky!

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    We've seen, I think, three hull losses from uncontained engine failure over the past year.
    were those all from the same engine manufacturer?

  7. #27
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I don't know if, before making this comment, you saw my post saying almost exactly the same thing.
    That's crazy! Not only did I not see it, we must have been writing this at almost the same time. Great minds think alike, eh?

  8. #28
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    That's crazy! Not only did I not see it, we must have been writing this at almost the same time. Great minds think alike, eh?
    And we would be a counter-example?

    --- 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 ---

  9. #29
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    That's crazy! Not only did I not see it, we must have been writing this at almost the same time. Great minds think alike, eh?
    So, great minds...I'm thinking as you continue to taxi and lay down your fire trail, that there's also fire burning through the wing and the fuel tank and burning up the ventilation system and the good, working meat grinder is running at an even higher RPM to maintain taxi, and you may be sealing off an approach route for fire trucks...

    ...maybe it's better that you hit the brakes, pop the preferred slides and get on with the evacuation and go ahead and let the fuel pool a bit. (you know, if you delay and the fire spreads and gets too critical, you can't grab your carry on either!).

    The only thing that might work is if "we" put giant fire extinguisher stations towards the end of the runway and you expedite your taxi there and park under it and push a button on a garage door opener type thing...but wait, no, what if there is serous tire/gear failure, or you are off the runway and stuck...never mind...

    The con's of your plan seem a bit bigger than your pros on this one.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    So, great minds...I'm thinking as you continue to taxi and lay down your fire trail, that there's also fire burning through the wing and the fuel tank and burning up the ventilation system and the good, working meat grinder is running at an even higher RPM to maintain taxi, and you may be sealing off an approach route for fire trucks...
    Well obviously you would have shut down the failed / fire indicated engine, most likely in the case of uncontained failure with the fire handle. With a fuel tank breach you would be trailing fuel but not necessarily burning fuel. Most importantly, you won't have a pool fire below a wing full of potentially explosive fuel. There's little harm in burning fuel if it isn't burning the airplane or filling it with smoke. Meanwhile, you are taxiing maybe 300 ft per minute. That's not going to hinder the fire trucks. I'm talking about kicking off the brakes and leaving the opposite engine(s) just above idle. Once the fire trucks arrive, typically within a few minutes, you can set the brakes, shut down the other engine(s) and do the evac safely.

    We saw what happens to a moving aircraft with a shrapnel-induced fuel tank breach with Qantas Flt 32. Nothing happens because there is nothing to ignite the fuel and no way for it to accumulate. The danger came in once they were stopped on the runway and fuel started pooling near the brakes.

  11. #31
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    I'm more concerned that some fucking clown gets his phone out and starts filming the evacuation !

    ....and as for the twats grabbing their carry ons !! Jesus Christ, When are these people going to learn that a few seconds can be the difference between living and dying. Don't give me all the shit about "important papers, laptop with work on it, passport". Apart from identifying your body they are of absolutely no use to you when you are dead.
    I know what this forum section is good for, e.g. 4U 9525. Captain S. tried to bring his passengers to MY home airport. But he did not succeed because of...
    [This has been discussed in this forum section in detail. And I think I have used the appropriate four-letter words to show my opinion about what en wiki calls 'the summary' or what I call the source of the evil.]

    This forum is also 'good for' a focus which shows the mistakes that have happened, rather than for help for the actual situation. Jetphotos teached me the word
    'survivable', which we obviously should use in this case.

    And as I know your (former) profession, I understand your point of view.

    "Wtf are you lookin for, don't you want to try to save your life."
    There is one exception where such a cabin announcement will not help, 4U 9525. And after all what I have seen on TV concerning this flight number, even you with your experience wouldn't have said, they didn't call me, but I'll go there and see what I can do.

    One theory says, how fast 1 a/c type must be evacuated. Imho, this theory contains humans, naked if not to avoid.
    No smartphones included.
    A new year, for all of us. But (not only) for me, it'll be a special year. Four decades in life, still this winter. And almost ten years here on this brilliant platform.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  12. #32
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    Wow... only 11 seconds between the pilot(s) being informed of fire and initiation of evacuation. That's impressive!

    Yeah I know they're trained to do that etc. but as we all know there have been many instances where the response was not as timely.
    I'd say that must be within the requirements of ... it is a Boeing, so I'd say that must be within the requirements of the FAA. I also know the time limits for evacuation of a/c that are not built in the USA (e.g. 388_),

    BUT, you live beyond the pond,
    don't ALL aircraft that are used by an airline who commercially serves 1 or more US American airports have to fulfil the FAA requirements?

    I have intense conversation with AA 1818, so I didn't expect something else. It's a safe airline. He wouldn't use that nickname if that weren't so.

    But there is a little 'but', what were the case if I weren't a true fan of the USA since Jimmy Carter, independent of politics. Then, I'd wonder, and I really try hard to avoid politics today, if a 767 can't be flown fully uneventful, in case that O'Hare would be my home airport. Or in case that a similar 767 would serve my home airport.
    But only then.

    Sometimes we are very fast with words although we haven't been there. But Pearson airport (an A343), then OMDB or now O'Hare, as long as the incident is survivable, nothing prevents me from the airport. That would be a bad philosophy, especially as Pearson today is a 747 destination, in Germany....
    Last edited by LH-B744; 11-01-2016 at 07:44 AM. Reason: Where the 747s are...
    A new year, for all of us. But (not only) for me, it'll be a special year. Four decades in life, still this winter. And almost ten years here on this brilliant platform.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  13. #33
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...There's little harm in burning fuel...
    I don't mean to dismiss that there could be a situation where taxiing is better than stopping...and understand how big pools of jet fuel have worsened fires.

    BUT, I kind of disagree with your snip there...The whole point (and inspiration of the carry-on-flamers) is that fire spreads REAL fast on aircraft.

    Burning a little fuel? Don't suppose it could be in the process of burning through the fuel tank to CAUSE/or worsen your pool?
    Burning a little fuel? Don't suppose it's propagating into a bigger fire- as so often happens.
    Burning a little fuel? Like the gentle, controlled, flameless fire of a few tobacco leaves in the lavatory...yeah, no harm there.

    Glad to see you make some gray-area statements, but the big over riding fuzzy deal is that fires fueled by kerosene and lightweight plastic stuff seems to spread quite rapidly...so rapidly that folks have been killed in the process of making an honest effort to escape...(where the few seconds to grab the carry-on OR to taxi onward on might mean life or death).

    The number of incidents where taxiing along, spreading your fuel leak AND the fire in the engine compartment spreads very slowly...I'm thinking that's a very low number versus how often you get the last passengers out with seconds to spare.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  14. #34
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    There's little harm in burning fuel if it isn't burning the airplane or filling it with smoke.
    As in, if it is burning on the runway some distance behind the aircraft, because you are rolling away from it. Com'on 3WE, I keep telling you, all the words matter.

  15. #35
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    I'd say that must be within the requirements of ... it is a Boeing, so I'd say that must be within the requirements of the FAA. I also know the time limits for evacuation of a/c that are not built in the USA (e.g. 388_),

    BUT, you live beyond the pond,
    don't ALL aircraft that are used by an airline who commercially serves 1 or more US American airports have to fulfil the FAA requirements?

    I have intense conversation with AA 1818, so I didn't expect something else. It's a safe airline. He wouldn't use that nickname if that weren't so.

    But there is a little 'but', what were the case if I weren't a true fan of the USA since Jimmy Carter, independent of politics. Then, I'd wonder, and I really try hard to avoid politics today, if a 767 can't be flown fully uneventful, in case that O'Hare would be my home airport. Or in case that a similar 767 would serve my home airport.
    But only then.

    Sometimes we are very fast with words although we haven't been there. But Pearson airport (an A343), then OMDB or now O'Hare, as long as the incident is survivable, nothing prevents me from the airport. That would be a bad philosophy, especially as Pearson today is a 747 destination, in Germany....

    Is it just me or?

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    716

    Default

    It's definitely not you!
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  17. #37
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...Com'on 3WE, I keep telling you, all the words matter...
    Indeed they do...just like these words:

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE
    I don't mean to dismiss that there could be a situation where taxiing is better than stopping...and understand how big pools of jet fuel have worsened fires.
    You should also know that I'm a big fan of the movie Airplane!

    I'm sure that right next to the "Running a little hot" warning light are warning lights that say, "Burning but not burning the airplane", "Burning but not filling it with smoke" and "Burning, but not spreading" and finally "Burning, but not spreading, at least for a few more minutes."

    And, of course, these all work well and fail-active (as opposed to fail passive) when an engine spews fan blades all over creation.

    All words matter and I invite you to try again and read my challenge:

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE
    The number of incidents where taxiing along, spreading your fuel leak AND the fire in the engine compartment spreads very slowly...I'm thinking that's a very low number versus how often you get the last passengers out with seconds to spare.
    I do believe that Gabe addressed this exact trade off in his rendition of largely-useless, outsider, pontificating parlour-talk.

    Edit: I guess you are saying that the fuel on the concrete burns somewhat spontaneously and you run off and leave it, while the fuel in the engine with the really hot parts and torn up spinning metal things struggles to burn? Okay...but maybe we need a warning light for that too.

    More edits: Yeah, a warning light that says "You really did put the fire out and stuff is cool enough and no electrical sparks are gonna happen and the brakes are good and the tires won't blow, and go ahead and taxi as long as you want..." Fail active too...that's important.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    All words matter and I invite you to try again and read my challenge:
    You're not getting this... You are rolling less than five feet per second. About the same speed as pulling into the gate. If there is a reason to evacuate, YES, you hit the brakes and evacuate. Nothing prevents you from doing that.

    But what actually happens in an uncontained engine failure? Shrapnel can penetrate the fuel tank, causing a moderate fuel leak. Most of the time this results in fuel leaking from the wing to the ground. If there's nothing to ignite it, nothing happens. Sometimes it leaks onto the engine, or a fuel line in direct proximity to the engine is damaged, causing a fire. If the fire is contained within the engine itself, there is not much to worry about before the fire trucks can get to you. The real danger is if a pool of fuel is ignited below the wing or fuselage. If that happens, there will be smoke. A lot of very obvious smoke.

    So here's what I was thinking: A crew gets an engine failure or fire indication on takeoff. They pull the levers to idle, the autobrakes kick in, and then when the aircraft is stopped, the brakes are released and the good engine throttled up just enough to keep the plane moving at a crawl (assuming there is ample runway or a turnout available). Fire services are called in. The crew quickly assesses the situation as they would normally do. If the cabin crew is reporting heavy smoke or fire, the brakes are applied, the engines are shut down and a normal evacuation follows. But, typically this won't be the case because most of these fires tend to arise from pooling fuel below a stationary aircraft. So they keep it moving, very slowly, for the brief span it takes to get the trucks out there to check for leaks and spray fire retardant if needed. You may have travelled 300-600ft further along the runway, so it's only going to take the fire crews an extra couple seconds to reach you.

    Remember, Qantas 32 had a fuel breach on the runway, but thankfully no fire. Because of the fuel on the runway, the hot brakes and the outer engine in runaway mode, they decided the safest place for the pax was inside the aircraft. But the moment a fire or dense smoke appeared, they were prepared to evacuate. As long as the crew is prepared to act, steps can be taken to avoid a catastophic outcome before it happens.

    If the leaked fuel is the threat, why not keep moving away from it?

  19. #39
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,998

    Default

    The scenario is a wing leaking a continuous stream of fuel.

    I can't imagine "fire" (in the normal sense) inside a wing tank. You have hot shrapnel flying through the wing tank. If it's hot enough and the air/fuel mixture in the em empty part of the tank has the right mixture, you will have an explosion. If outside fire somehow makes its way into the tank, you will have either an explosion or nothing as the fire would almost immediately extinguish itself due to oxygen deprivation. If the fuel tank overheats due to external fire (without it penetrating in the tank), it may explode if the ensuing pressure rise is fast enough. In either case, the chances of that happening is if you have a big pool of fuel ablaze directly under the tank. If you have a continuous flow of fuel leaking through some holes in the wing or CWT, and you are moving, there will be no pool, there will be no big fire, and most if not all of it will not be under the tank. Yes, you can leave a line of fire behind, like the 747 taking off in Die Hard II, but the fire WILL NOT go into the tank and make the plane explode, like the 747 taking off in Die Hard II.

    --- 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 ---

  20. #40
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    The scenario is a wing leaking a continuous stream of fuel... fuel tank... blah blah blah...
    Yeah, sure... but I think the issue is that its pretty easy to light off whatever fuel leak into a growing fire and perhaps generally better to get the folks off before the fire starts. Wasn't that Japanese deal a situation that there was no fire until they parked?

    Evan may argue that the parking and pooling was a major factor, but I'm not sure that taxiing until the tank ran dry is a reasonable option either...AND you still need a fail active warning light that says "Fuel leak, but one that won't catch fire unless you stop"
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •