当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。
閉じる
FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか?
広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.
閉じる
Back to Squawk list
  • 17

NTSB: British Airways 777’s left engine case has ‘multiple breaches’

送信時刻:
 
The left GE90 engine on the British Airways Boeing 777 that caught fire on a Las Vegas runway has “multiple breaches of the engine case,” investigators said. In an investigative update, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said an initial examination of the 777-200ER’s left engine revealed the engine case breaches “in the area around the high pressure compressor.” NTSB added that investigators recovered “several pieces of the high pressure compressor spool (approximately 7-8 inches… (atwonline.com) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Moviela
I wonder if the port engine ingested debris on the runway or a varmint of some kind. I trust they will inventory everything found at the scene and account for why it was there.

The crew did everything right to evacuate the airplane with nothing more serious than a few abrasions.
siriusloon
"I trust they will inventory everything found at the scene and account for why it was there."

Incredible as it may sound, that's kind of how professional air accident investigators do their job. Who'd a thunk it?

They'll also properly ascertain if the crew "did everything right". The fact that there were no serious injuries does not mean that they did everything right, nor would serious injuries necessarily mean that they did not. A proper investigation will include interviewing all of the cabin staff, the flight crew, and numerous passengers. Only then will it be possible to know if they "did everything right" or if there were any problems or deficiencies, and then whether those were due to individual crewmembers' performance or if there's a larger training issue involved. That's why investigations take place and why carefully-considered conclusions are reached in due course rather than making broad assumptions based on anecdotal media reports, none of which have so far mentioned the possibility of a "varmint" being involved.
andyc852
Why did he stop with the smoke and flames blowing across the fuselage hindering evacuation and increasing the risk of engulfing the whole aircraft in flames. I think it got very close to that
Bernie20910
Because at that point you're letting your training and the procedures you've studied and practiced over and over so many times take over. You're not really "thinking" about anything more than what you've been trained to do in such a situation, and I don't think it's part of the emergency procedures to orient the aircraft a certain way in relation to the wind. Might be a good idea to look into adding that to the training and procedures though.
preacher1
I'm kinda like Bernie. That training kicks in and it basically is to get the thing stopped and the people off and hopefully out of harms way. It took 5 minutes to evac anyway, vs 90 seconds required by FAA. How long would it have took if he had spent time and checking wind plus what may have happened. Whole lot of what ifs. Get stopped and get 'em off the plane.
paultrubits
Preacher: Has anyone said how fast they were going when the engine blew? Were they spooling up or actually picking up speed? And how long do you think it took the flight crew to know the engine blew? Can you hear it or did a bunch of warning lights go off? This is not something that happens everyday.
preacher1
Don't know about time or warning lights but somewhere I read that they were doing about 100 when he aborted. Not far from rotating. It might have got ugly if he had gotten airborne. Just like that DC10 at ORD years ago. They said if he'd kept his speed up that he might have got back around but he did engine out per the checklist, so you never know.
paultrubits
They were lucky! I would have retired after that, too.
louiew
Highly doubt runway debris would cause this. Several breaches to the engine containment high pressure turbines says failure from with in. Not going to venture a guess as to what caused the failure. That is up to the GE and NTSB experts to determine.
zennermd
zennermd 0
Never discount runway debris. Remember the Concorde?
yr2012
Concorde's tires were on fire before striking Continental's runway debris. It's strange they grounded the entire fleet based on one accident, while 29 747's failed and they're still flying.
louiew
Highly doubt runway debris would cause this. Several breaches to the engine containment high pressure turbines says failure from with in. Not going to venture a guess as to what caused the failure. That is up to the GE and NTSB experts to determine.
louiew
Correction failure of the high pressure compressor, not turbine.
siriusloon
Not mentioned in the article is that the aircraft is being written off. It entered service in 1997.
bigjulie
It suffered quite a bit of damage in the fire!
bigjulie
I see in the videos of the incident that some passengers have got their carry-on baggage with them as they are evacuating. When ordered to evacuate, you get out of the plane fast, you don't worry about your luggage if you do try to retrieve your luggage from the overhead bins you are hindering other pax from evacuating quickly! It is better to worry about your life than worry about luggage!
joewillett
It's always amazing that people in emergency situations will react in selfish ways. i.e. getting their personal luggage from overhead bens, delaying egress, not following the directions of AC crew. Maybe that's why I fly so little commercially anymore.
eddyandy
eddyandy 1
Why were the chutes deployed on the side where the fire was?!!!!
yr2012
because when they pull the deployment lever, it does it on both sides at the same time. Luckily no one died as a result
eddyandy
eddyandy 1
Thanks. I didn't know that.

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!