It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

catastrophic-engine-failure-causes-ba-jet-fire

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
www.msn.com...

Looks like the captain saved the day but i wonder what has gone so very wrong as to cause this major engine failure on take off on what is normally such a reliable aircraft




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
in the old days it would be the drunk mechanics and their tier of sign-offs....these days it's just that flying was never inherently safe...huh!
edit on 8-9-2015 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
It was G-VIIO. 182nd triple seven to be made and is 16 years old. It's equipped with the General Electric GE90-85B engines. IIO stayed at Cardiff maintenance for a month last year which was normal schedule.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: astra001uk

Engines fail. Not usually this spectacularly, but even with the best maintenance program in the world it happens. Possibly a hydraulic line let go and the fluid caught fire. I wouldn't be shocked at all to learn that during its last maintenance they failed to tighten a line properly and it worked loose.
edit on 9/8/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Well whatever caused it better that it occurred on the ground instead of 37k feet in the air.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey Zaph. I have just had a quick look at the pictures, and to me, it looks like a fire in the cargo/fuselage area, not the engine. What is your opinion on those photos.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
:
edit on 9-9-2015 by nelloh62 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2015 by nelloh62 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

I can't get the pics to load right now but the ones I saw last night looked like it started in the engine and spread to the hold area. There was a lot of damage to the wing root.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
There was a crosswind from the left at the time. So when the fire started, it was blown towards the fuselage, resulting in the damage seen.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Zaph, I think you are right. I just viewed them on a better pc and I think you have got that spot on. I can now see where the fire was on the fuselage side of the engine. Cheers



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

They're trying to figure out if the failure was contained or not now. There was debris on the runway but that could very easily have been a result of the fire causing so much damage to the engine and cowling.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If it was catastrophic engine failure, can anyone explain why there are burn marks on both sides? Witnesses report it was coming from the middle, below the plane also.

The pictures show two 'sides' of the plane engulfed. I would think if it was one engine, catastrophic failure, we have damage to one side right?

www.mirror.co.uk...

Just my two cents...



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

See my post about the winds. There was a 15 knot left to right crosswind. The wind blew the flames under the fuselage where the paint burned. It's also not clear if a fuel line was damaged, which would have added to the fire.
edit on 9/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

www.theguardian.com...-2

That fuselage has got rather hot hasnt it ? picture 5
edit on 9/9/2015 by astra001uk because: (no reason given)







edit on 9/9/2015 by astra001uk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: astra001uk

You can see in every one of those pics the smoke is going left to right. In one is blown almost straight sideways. If there was a damaged fuel line the wind would have blown it right under the fuselage.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
twitter.com...
excellent picture here showing the damage from the fire



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: astra001uk

There was a leak involved. That was a very intense fire to do that much damage in a fairly short time, so something more had to be involved. Either a fuel or hydraulic line let go and leaked I'll bet.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
This picture shows some 'outward' bending of the fuselage...

i1.mirror.co.uk...

I know that in the 777 there is a underside fuel tank and that would be a good point to ba-boom? no?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

The aluminum weakened and bent outward during the fire. There was engine debris reported on the runway, there was flame outboard of the left engine, with a left to right wind. It would have had to spread against the wind to get there if it started in the fuselage.

If it had been the center wing fuel tank that would have meant it was empty. If this aircraft didn't have an inerting system installed it would have been filled with vapor and exploded.
edit on 9/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Obviously the aircraft has been written off due to damage. It's being reported that the engine may have ingested FOD at the start of the takeoff roll.

Tower audio.

clyp.it...
edit on 9/10/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
FOD?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join