Aircraft On Fire at Ohare

Mobile video.

It seems it blew a tire rolling out, with a knock on damage to engine and wing....see last link.

Boeing 767-323ER N345AN, MSN 33084, LN:906. First flew 4/16/2003, powered by 2 GE CF6-80 engines.

Chicago fire officials reported an emergency at the scene, saying "aircraft down at O'Hare."

The incident prompted an extra-alarm response.

I had a family member fly on a 767 to Europe last night. P&W engines on that one though.

This would be a stress maker if this happen before.

a reply to: roadgravel

This makes at least three GE engine fires in about a year. Two GE115Bs caught fire on 777s, and this one.

GE, "we bring good things to life".

According to FR24, they were at 115 knots when they aborted.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Have you seen reference to which runway the plane was on?

a reply to: roadgravel

Not yet. They're still sorting details out.

WGN has video of people using the slides during the evacuation of the plane.

a reply to: roadgravel

They were on 28R. That closed 28C and 28L.

Seven passengers and a flight attendant were treated for minor injuries after the evacuation. The NTSB has announced they're sending a team to investigate the incident.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: lernmore

A piece of tire went through the cowling and broke either a hydraulic or fuel line, igniting the engine. The way it bent like that shows how much weight the winglet puts on the wingtip.

A piece of tire (tyre). Best ground the entire fleet then, much like the Concorde fiasco

Just saying

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Concorde was already doomed, even if it hadn't crashed. It was never able to make enough money for it to last much longer than it did.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Concorde was already doomed, even if it hadn't crashed. It was never able to make enough money for it to last much longer than it did.

I understand that Zaph, however, why spend so much money on mods to the fuel tanks if it was a no brainer, seems too convenient to just disband the fleet after the AF accident, spending millions for no reason .... sorry off topic but relevant

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Because they had a few more years in them, until fuel prices started to fluctuate the way they did. In September 2001, a little over a year after AF 4590 crashed, fuel was at $0.74/gal. Concorde was affordable at that price, especially with fuel prices dropping over the next year. By October 2003, it had gone as high as $1.06/gal, and the overall trend for 2003 was up, even though it dropped after hitting that high. By 2004, it was hanging around $1/gal and increasing. They retired it at the right time, before they started losing more money on it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

makes sense

However, the people that used it, to get across the Atlantic in 3 hours would have, and probably still would, pay the premium regardless

I'm near Filton LOL, i still find the old bird desirable, it's quite sad to see her covered in Guano and slime, same could be said about any retired craft i suppose

originally posted by: Zaphod58
According to FR24, they were at 115 knots when they aborted.

That is way below V1 speed, even for a light weight takeoff. The V1 speed is the continue or abort decision speed. Below V1 you stop, above V1 you continue the takeoff with 1 engine. The V1 speed for a moderately loaded (540,000 pounds) 777 with flaps 15 is right at 150 knots.