767 fire at Chicago airport

[baldy1926]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37804736

Some good footage of a 1 sided evacuation with only minor injuries to a few passengers and 1 flight attendant.
I notice the report mentioned passengers leaving with luggage again i certainly wouldn't hand around too close to the plane to watch.
It was probably good that the flight was not full they really should look at looking the overhead bins but it would not stop under seat luggage being taken.

The firefighting looked good with the airframe looking still intact with burn marks only from the wing back.

[fatboy b]

baldy1926 said:

The firefighting looked good with the airframe looking still intact with burn marks only from the wing back.

Well apart from one truck going the wrong side, then realising that the huge plume of black smoke was the other side.

[Warby80]

fatboy b said:

baldy1926 said:

The firefighting looked good with the airframe looking still intact with burn marks only from the wing back.

Well apart from one truck going the wrong side, then realising that the huge plume of black smoke was the other side.

Looked to me like the truck was trying to go round the front of the aircraft to fight the fire from the other side and had to slow to go past passengers?

[surveyor]

On the luggage front...

All recent evacs passengers have had hand off luggage. They've all got off.

Perhaps it's time to look at whether the luggage is a problem, before putting complex systems in place which weigh, cost money to install and repair, and possibly confuse passengers when you want them to get out of their...

I'm not holding out any particular position, but people can't keep saying it's dangerous when the evidence appears to be disputing it. It needs looking at

[Viperzs]

surveyor said:

On the luggage front...

All recent evacs passengers have had hand off luggage. They've all got off.

Perhaps it's time to look at whether the luggage is a problem, before putting complex systems in place which weigh, cost money to install and repair, and possibly confuse passengers when you want them to get out of their...

I'm not holding out any particular position, but people can't keep saying it's dangerous when the evidence appears to be disputing it. It needs looking at

It is mere fortune that nothing has happened due to people getting their luggage. It is fact that stopping to get belongings delays the evacuation of ANYTHING. It is a matter of time before this luck runs out

[davepoth]

Viperzs said:

It is mere fortune that nothing has happened due to people getting their luggage. It is fact that stopping to get belongings delays the evacuation of ANYTHING. It is a matter of time before this luck runs out

Bane of my life on Ryanair when a tiny pensioner is trying to extract a vast suitcase from the overheads - it takes a good ten seconds sometimes, and I don't think they'd do it any quicker if they were on fire.

Overhead luggage locks would be simple to implement and wouldn't need to weigh much at all - but it would make everything move much quicker in an emergency.

[dvs_dave]

In a life threatening emergency I would have zero hesitation in forcibly removing from and tossing aside the luggage of an idiot getting in the way of myself and the 100+ people being held up by their selfishness.

[Europa1]

fatboy b said:

baldy1926 said:

The firefighting looked good with the airframe looking still intact with burn marks only from the wing back.

Well apart from one truck going the wrong side, then realising that the huge plume of black smoke was the other side.

Serious question: is the wing not part of the airframe?

[baldy1926]

Europa1 said:

fatboy b said:

baldy1926 said:

The firefighting looked good with the airframe looking still intact with burn marks only from the wing back.

Well apart from one truck going the wrong side, then realising that the huge plume of black smoke was the other side.

Serious question: is the wing not part of the airframe?

I really should have put fuselage

[ukaskew]

Main thing I noticed is an awful lot of people stood watching (presumably passengers who got off) who remained remarkably close to the aircraft.

My main concern would be getting far enough away that in a worse case fireball / rather large explosion scenario, I was well clear.

[Krikkit]

ukaskew said:

Main thing I noticed is an awful lot of people stood watching (presumably passengers who got off) who remained remarkably close to the aircraft.

My main concern would be getting far enough away that in a worse case fireball / rather large explosion scenario, I was well clear.

Can't understand that either - not only were they close enough to be at risk from the fire, but they were also milling around as the bloody huge green fire engine arrived! Madness.

[EddyP]

So according to Facebook cause was a stage 2 high pressure turbine disc failure.

[eldar]

In the second pic, it looks like something has created a hole in the exit door - bit of detached blade?

[uncinqsix]

So when this sort of thing happens, how do they get rid of the wreck? do they just tow it to a quiet part of the airfield and break out the gas axes? Do they have specialist companies who come in and do that kind of work?

[Eric Mc]

The aircraft may well be repairable - as was the case with the BA 777 which suffered a serious fire not that long ago.

[Wobbegong]

Krikkit said:

ukaskew said:

Main thing I noticed is an awful lot of people stood watching (presumably passengers who got off) who remained remarkably close to the aircraft.

My main concern would be getting far enough away that in a worse case fireball / rather large explosion scenario, I was well clear.

Can't understand that either - not only were they close enough to be at risk from the fire, but they were also milling around as the bloody huge green fire engine arrived! Madness.

Their main concern was probably trying to get a selfie with the burning wreckage while telling Facebook how terrified they were.

[JuniorD]

Wobbegong said:

Krikkit said:

ukaskew said:

Main thing I noticed is an awful lot of people stood watching (presumably passengers who got off) who remained remarkably close to the aircraft.

My main concern would be getting far enough away that in a worse case fireball / rather large explosion scenario, I was well clear.

Can't understand that either - not only were they close enough to be at risk from the fire, but they were also milling around as the bloody huge green fire engine arrived! Madness.

Their main concern was probably trying to get a selfie with the burning wreckage while telling Facebook how terrified they were.

It's that part of the psyche that comes to the fore at airports - the peculiar urge to be among the first ones back on board

[J4CKO]

Eric Mc said:

The aircraft may well be repairable - as was the case with the BA 777 which suffered a serious fire not that long ago.

Didn't think they would repair the BA 777 so possibly, this looks worse though, suppose will depend on cost vs the value of the plane, are 777s significantly more expensive that 767s ?

Similar damage but the wing looks a lot crispier !

[Eric Mc]

I think it will depend on how old the 767 is and how many hours or on the airframe as to whether it is worth repairing.

[uncinqsix]

Eric Mc said:

I think it will depend on how old the 767 is and how many hours or on the airframe as to whether it is worth repairing.

13 years old apparently, so not ancient, but no spring chicken either. It would be a pretty serious repair though. Bit more than a few rolls of speed tape.