Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American 767 incident at ORD - right wing burned severely

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

  • #31
    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.
    The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
    This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

    Comment


    • #32
      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; 2016-11-01, 07:44. Reason: Where the 747s are...
      The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
      This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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?

            Comment


            • #36
              It's definitely not you!
              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

              Eric Law

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                ...Com'on 3WE, I keep telling you, all the words matter...
                Indeed they do...just like these words:

                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:

                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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 ---

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        You're not getting this...If the leaked fuel is the threat, why not keep moving away from it?
                        Ok, so the big ass fire we see here at ORD is the result of stopping?

                        You keep shifting your comments from a little fire now to no fire, but just a leak... so if the "Small fuel leak, but not near a heat source" warning light is illuminated, pilots should keep taxiing... ok, sounds good, and we should recommend that to the aviation industry.

                        Still, is that particularly relevant to the big ass wing melting fire at ORD? My doubts remain for that context.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          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...
                          Where did I say that? I said taxiing for a few minutes at most, maybe 300-600ft. Forget it, there's no way to have a reasonable conversation with someone who keeps distorting your intentions. At least Gabriel gets it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            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"
                            The fuel is leaking AND catching fire. You are leaving a trail of fire behind you, a line of fuel that has a lineal density of, let's say, 1 gallon per foot. So if you keep taxing at say 10 ft per second and it takes 2 minutes to the first firetruck to arrive, you would have BEHIND you a long line of 1200ft of fuel on fire (again, one gallon of fuel on fire per foot for a total of 1200 gallons of fuel). That sounds to me much better than having 1200 gallong of fuel ablaze directly under the fuel tank.

                            --- 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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              Ok, so the big ass fire we see here at ORD is the result of stopping?
                              Exactly. Maybe more precisely, the big concentration of fire.

                              The big fireballs in these cases tend to start after the airplane stops, when the fuel starts to pool.

                              It is not the same to have a 1200ft line of fire BEHIND the plane than all that fire concentrated together in one spot directly below the plane.

                              --- 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


                              • #45
                                Fascinating discussion. I think in this retrospective you have to forget about saving the aircraft and focus primarily on passenger safety.

                                I suspect that the pilots knew it was an uncontained engine failure based on the fact there would likely have been a large noise and physical impact to the airplane in that kind of uncontained explosion. Based on the video the smoke patterns indicate to me that there was a fire right away. I think there are some odds the cockpit may have been informed either by the tower, or their own FA's that there was a fire on/in the wing. When you have fire combined with an uncontained engine failure, I would be worried about cabin ingress and smoke ingress as well. As others have said, when you have fire and smoke, you get everyone out ASAP. You're not going to take the time to figure out if you're in a weird five percent case, where delaying evacuation to keep fuel from puddling MIGHT lead to a better safety outcome. Outside of this forum, I just can't see that as realistic. Additionally, regardless of how much fuel is pooling, it is not likely to burn through the metal skin of the plane because that sort of fire isn't going to be hot enough to melt the metal until long after the evacuation is completed.

                                Even in the worst burned sections of the wing, the metal doesn't look melted. It is certainly weakened, and as a result it is no longer load bearing and bent, but it isn't melted.

                                The only exception I can think of, is if the wind is blowing the fire and/or smoke into the fuselage which could significantly interfere with an evacuation, in which case turning the airplane might be a good decision.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X