Hidden Disaster | The True Story Of British Airways G-YMME
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2023
- After take-off from London Heathrow, passengers onboard this British Airways B777, gaze out of their windows, settling into their long flight to Zimbabwe, an eagle-eyed observer spots something unusual-a mysterious vapour trail trailing behind the plane.
Concern spreads among the flight crew as they quickly realize the gravity of the situation. The aircraft is leaking fuel from the centre wing fuel tank, this routine flight is now a disastrous scenario where one spark or one miscalculated move could lead to catastrophe.
Join us as we delve into this fascinating story and highlight the twists and turns that led to this moment and discover what happens next.
Final Report:
assets.publishing.service.gov...
Music: Eternals by Alex-Productions / alexproductionsmusic
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/3PGG5nk
Music promoted by Audio Library • Eternals - Alex-Produc...
I like this type of information. What I don’t like is when too much drama is introduced to bring issue to attention and subsequent resolve. You present the situation, the condition of the aircraft, the nature of the problem, and the resolutions in an appropriate fashion WITHOUT overly dramatic intensity or language. Lastly, you show the resolutions in writing for future changes in safety procedures. Very well-done! Bravo 🙌
or like many shows except for maybe some "seconds from disaster", where it's all drama it was bad people were in distress etc, and they never actually tell you what failed or why beyond the obvious "it crashed" or "there was a fire". As someone that likes to tinker with things, It does me no good if what field/broke is never known, because you never know what needs to be fixed/adjusted/avoided/etc. So content like this that shows the problem, the abrasion hole, the location of the fatigue fracture, etc, is appreciated.
Though I’d dispute the comments about the hear of the brakes from taxi and take off. This would have been minimal due to the cooling effect of airflow on take off run - and due to low speed of taxi, they are not heavily used so would not have generated great heat.
😂🎉❤
Always be safe before taking off
@@ZarcondeegrissomIve never like "Seconds from Disaster". Overly dramatic to the Nth degree, the incessant tick-tocking and clearly made to have 7-8-9 commercial breaks, where they sum up b4 and after every single break, repeating the same info ad nauseam, meaning they really get to very little info between all the repeats and fake drama.
There are soooo many RUclips channels, that make far better docs than "Seconds from Disaster", this channel is among them.
Honestly, Ive always been annoyed with those drama queen "docs", as I like to call them, and Ive always found "Seconds from Disaster" to be the worst of them. Then again, since I was so disgusted with them, after giving them a chance and trying several episodes, I havent watched any episodes for several years, so I guess, they could have improved. Tho I doubt it, they had a clear concept.
I love the fact you go so technical
it is always something I look for in such videos...
tyvm for the upload.
🦬🇨🇦🤟
This was EXCELLENT! Your detailed analysis was incredible. As an aside, I majorred in speech years ago with an emphasis in public speaking. I.e. your diction and delivery were excellent!
And, it doesn't hurt to have a Brit accent...😀
That’s great to hear! Thank you Tom, I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Well put, I agree!
Look up 'Green Dot Aviation', if you want to listen to some REALLY proffesional commentary on aircraft incidents. 😉
@@phuketexplorer he isn’t a pilot though is he? Just an aviation enthusiast. That’s why I like this channel so much as the content creator is actually a pilot, so I know the information is accurate and can be backed by experience!
It's a huge relief that this lesson was learned without the loss of life 🙏 😊 the pilots did a great job, just as you did on this video! ❤️ 👍 so happy to see your channel growing more and more 😊
Thanks as always Yuki!
Really outstanding description of what could have been a catastrophic event. The crew followed aviate, navigate and communicate well. They added cogitate, which likely saved their aircraft.
Thank you and well said!
ANOTHER incident I haven’t heard of! Thank you for all these great videos! So great to watch and I really love how they keep me engaged. I don’t blame the maintenance people, they couldn’t fix what they didn’t know about. Although, someone had to remove it first. I hope that person learnt their lesson, this could have been much worse!
Thank you, I think the issue with the maintenance was that they never found out who initially took off the purge door. It’s good to see a more robust system put in place after this event.
With the discrepancies in the manuals regarding returning the purge doors (if I understood that segment correctly) it's hardly the fault of the guy or gal who took them off. This is one of the serious disadvantages to a system too tightly constrained to "by instructions only" rules... It's just so easy to assume someone taking off a part would have the sense to put it back at the end of a repair (because literally ALL automotive repair guides simply finish a section with "Reassembly is the reverse order of Disassembly in the beginning of this section" or "Reverse steps 2 thru 10" and such) that the aviation industry is probably the ONLY place you'll have to have specific instructions like "Step 113 a -- Return the purge door(s) to their positions and torque the bolts to spec' in a star pattern sequence."
The individual technicians will be reluctant to admit to "being the dunder-head who took off a door and didn't put it back" because that might be a terminable offense... and don't forget embarrassment... BUT they're going to be similarly reluctant to voluntarily return the door, considering without instruction explicitly to do so, they can get fired for malfeasance on behalf of uninstructed activity on the parts of the plane... as if they just run around willy-nilly untorquing and randomly torquing on bolts to cause trouble and "mischief".
I can't count how many times, as a technician of any kind, I end up going through machines and finding someone had tried to perform a repair and skipped a step in the assembly or disassembly... and everything went sideways from there... just worse and worse until they either gave up or broke whatever they were trying to fix...
AND 90% of "common maintenance" on most equipment (including cars and yard machines) is "simple janitorial"... meaning, "stuff works better for longer if you occasionally just open it up and remove dust and crap that doesn't belong in there."
That's not to "insult" the fine institution of aviation mechanics. They HAVE to perform at a higher standard than I do, whether it's as a diesel tech' for the 18-wheelers and other heavy equipment, or an appliance tech' putting blenders and washing machines back to service or restoring old power tools that aren't "too far gone". It's just to point out some of the difference between "how the rest of the world works most of the time" and how aviation, for all the efforts to safety, can "get hoist on their own patard"... so to say (however you spell it). ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 I agree! To my mind one should never assume that the person removing a part will be the person putting it back in place. This ought to be a fundamental assumption in the design of maintenance procedures and documentation.
@@alphalunamare That's ESPECIALLY true in any commercial setting. I've known of dozens and DOZENS of people who were quick at tearing everything down, and so bosses kept them around, because they could at least push wrenches without breaking anything... BUT these same people couldn't put SH*T back together in the right order... You couldn't trust them to get two screws in the same two holes twice in a row, let along feed wires through conduit, remember the dielectric grease for connectors, to spray ANYTHING with silicone for sealant... just forget it. You'd be lucky if half the stuff wasn't upside down or backwards... SO they'd stay on the tear-down side of the shop, and guys and gals who COULD keep two things straight at once got the work of putting everything back together.
It's just a matter of keeping the shop FLOWING, so personnel get put wherever they go at the time. The best run shops almost never had the same person pulling parts and putting them back... In well educated and trained groups it was just faster for everyone to focus on a part removal, and go on to the next or a part installation and go on to the next.
SO I don't see the commercial aviation tech's working terribly different. ;o)
@gnarthdarkanen7464 I totally agree with you, I worked in a deep maintenance Company where too many mistakes would get one fired. There was a lad who was very well thought of , for speed and unblemished record.. One evening over a few beers he told his secret, He only ever removed parts, never installed anything, never adjusted or tested. A while later I was his boss, He wasn't quiet the golden boy after that and actually left as he was way over his head. My stance was that he was paid the same as us, so carry the same weight 😊😊😂
When you talk about venting the tank, the reason is to get the fuel vapour down below "LEL" which is the Lower Explosive Limit (compared to UEL). Between these two values the air-fuel mixture can explode but too little or too much and it's perfectly safe. Despite what we see in films like Die Hard 2, it's unlikely the fuel could have ignited in the air but there would have been a very real possibility of ignition as the aircraft was slowing down as the amount of air to fuel could have gone up during landing. Great piece of flying and excellent discussion. (It occurs to me that Air France Concorde disaster seems to prove this theory wrong, but in that case a much lager hole had been punched in the tank allowing far more fuel to flow, with sufficient air/fuel mixture to be between LEL and UEL, and that got into the engine exhaust where it caught fire.)
Well done!
I am really impressed with how this video showed the event in a calm, informative manner. I am not at all technically minded and the easy to follow technique used by the narrator made this a lot more interesting for me rather than getting lost in technobabble. I also makes me feel a lot safer flying knowing that the British flight crew have such competence and skill. I've just subscribed to the channel I enjoyed it that much.
These videos are top notch ! Graphics are phenomenal and they are so informative!! Great job !
Amazing that such an incident had not occurred before! 🛩
Enjoyed the presentation
Excellent work by the crew and by you, sir.
Excellent video, thank you! Sometimes it's the simplest things. So glad no-one was hurt for the industry to learn this lesson!
Fantastic video! I I hadn’t heard of this incident before so it was cool to learn about it! Please keep them coming!
Thanks Jackie, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent presentation. Please keep the videos coming
Thanks, will do!
Great vid bro
10/10 video - and note that I'm saying that about a video you made about an incident where there was no injury, loss of life, or damage to the aircraft. Fascinating. I especially appreciated the specifics of the safety remediation actions taken.
Impressive that the waiting plane even included in their observation that they smelled fuel, must have been taxiing with a window open?
Plus I always thought big airports all have that kerosene smell of Jet-A around them normally, but those guys were able to sniff out the difference.
The air system takes in air from outside so no need for an open window.
Excellent video. It's insane that there were no systems monitoring the center fuel tank. However, the pilots did a fantastic job evaluating and managing the risks involved
There are systems monitoring the center fuel tank but mainly quantity. If you didn't notice that it was leaking it could be missed unless you monitored it for abnormal fuel loss which wouldn't necessarily be readily available unless you identified the leak in the first place which thankfully they were able to because another aircraft noticed it when they were departing.
Also since the center fuel tank is emptying it wouldn't cause a fuel imbalance thus no advisory message.
It makes logical sense when you think about it because while tanks can spring a leak it's not common and very easy to catch most of the time.
It's just the circumstances of this particular incident lined up in such a way to make this one unique. Bear in mind the 777 had been flying since the late 90's by this point.
Great video. Great decision by the pilots to jettison the fuel. Very thorough investigation leading to amending maintenance procedures. This incident was a great lesson to all concerned.
Bad maintenance is one of the major causes of air disasters. It is done by people and as it happens, people are error prone. All it takes is one sleepy worker and bang! I'd say some people should sit down and come up with procedures that make such work more fool proof. Easier said than done, but a necessity anyway.
At least incidents like this one, create change and make the aviation industry safer, hopefully assisting the error prone humans!
@@CuriousPilot90 The caveat there, is that if it takes an incident like this or something much worse to fix something, there are millions of ways something could go wrong and that would require millions of "incidents " to get it right. I wouldn't like that. 😏
Great video! I learned a bit about how to improve my own non-aviation documented procedures.
Great video and explanation of events, I live about four miles from Cardiff Airport and the graphics accurately show the airport and surrounding area. I've leaned my motorcycle round that long bend many times!
Our Dad used to take us down Font Y Gary and tell us to run away and play. There used to be a field for cars, a huge cafe and a dangerous green seagrass covered set of steps down to the rocks below with rock pools, crabs and red sea anenomes.. It was Rhoose Airport in them days :-)
@@alphalunamare The steps are still there although they're a bit better now than they used to be
@@andyburnett8012 I did wonder if the simulator view of things was accurate, thanks for confirming it. The steps were slippery and had a rusted barnacled fence to hang onto back then .. cut your hands that did. I am glad it's still open 🙂
omg that blast caught me off guard!
😁💥
Great video. Keep it up.
Absolutely loved the presentation of this incident. Good job and thanks!
Currently watching this from the hold of G-YMME :) It's still going in 2023
truely a intresting incident i havent even heard of something like this happening. What was this filmed in also?
Nice and calm narration and very clear information…thankyou.
Thank you :)
Outstanding presentation, thanks.
I can feel the fear of the mechanic who signed off that job. Desperately studying the maintenance manual and looking for anything that mentioned that door. I imagine he or she was absolved since the AMM didn't mention it.
That said, someone wold normally have opened a separate nonroutine to record removal of the purge door. On the other hand, the whole job was supposed to be covered by the AMM, so how would he know? Sounds like the technical writers at Boeing were a bit asleep at the wheel.
Mant repair stations hang leads off removed parts or parts with a discrepancy. I've always seen that as a great procedure for the QC personnel (and anyone else on the plane).
Great video. Thank you. As a backup test to check for fuel tank leaks, why not incorporate a vacuum or pressure test ? A simple air line hookup to vacuum test or pressure test the tanks prior to refueling would've detected the open purge door. Lanyards, tethers and hanging cards are only visual aids. A vacuum or low pressure air test would be fool proof.
Don"t aircraft fuel tanks have vents to relieve pressure in the tanks? If so, unless they can be closed off, pressure testing would be impossible; and, if they can be closed off, those conducting the test would have to remember to reopen them afterwards.
@@geminian7846 If that's the case, a vacuum test should work if the pressure vents are of a reed valve / flapper type design.
The tank vent allow air into the tanks to replace fuel being used, so any valve within the vent will allow air in but not out. In fact, I don’t believe that there is a valve within the vent because fuel can and does come out of these vents if the main tank is overfilled. Air has to move in both directions through the vent during fuelling and fuel usage.
@@EdOeunafuel tanks have to be vented to stop pressure buildups, it’s relatively volatile stuff.
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 - I know, that’s why I said the vents allow movement of air into the tank.
Very well presented and redacted, easily understandable !! Thank YOU !!
Fascinating
I enjoyed your video very much. Interesting, informative, and no sensationalism or over dramatisation. Subscribed.
Welcome aboard! I'm glad you enjoyed it, there's plenty more to check out!
@@CuriousPilot90 excellent, thank you. Looking forward to a binge video watch!
A very well presented answer to everyday problems thank you
The presentation was very well done
Glad you liked it Stephen, thanks.
Superb. Thank you.
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
pausing at 7min as I need to sort out, 43,400kg in a tank that holds how much, on top of what was put in the tank before (31,000kg leak test)? hmmm, My first thought was, what percent full was the tank vertically. Bit ominous the OSHA complaint work safe vent was never part of the tank inspection documents, Hmmm. Ok, in the PDF it says 80,028kg, so about sort of half full-ish.
In a way this reminds me of an experience I had when I had borrowed some one's car once and they never thought to tell me there was a problem with the fuel fill tube. when I went to top off the tank in kindness of them letting me drive the car to the corner store, I discovered fuel poring out under the car instead of the tank topping off, lol. 'fun' times.
good docu mate fanx
Great video, you now have another subscriber.
Your video was really cool I like it
Brilliant Video! The crew did a fantastic job, I was on the edge of my seat the whole video! Thank you for this!
I’m glad you enjoyed it Josh!
I like this report. Thank you.
Great! I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks Jim.
Planes have taken off without the ailerons/flaps deployed, taking off without takeoff configuration is insane, the fact that passengers can see this and the pilot can't is ridiculous, why don't they have cameras so the pilot can see the plane he's flying, to me it sounds, Insane.
I look at all channels on these subjects but this was unheard
Thank you and good videos
😁
Well done to the pilots Thankfully everyone was safe on the ground
Hummm! Perhaps use a tablet prior to removing part~parts, then after completion another picture of it re~assembled. That could be viewed from the supervisor and also for later evaluation ~ keep up the great vids thanks
Interesting point, that way you would have a photo record of everything. I guess the issue still arises if someone doesn't record the initial picture, it then leaves everyone susceptible to missing that part.
@@CuriousPilot90 Pictures are easy to take and to be honest most kids in school would include them in a manual.
Did Tablets exist in 2004?
I remember Aspirin?
The pilots were incredible !!!
Brilliant by pilots
The way this issue was handled, greatly contradicts the lessons learned from Swissair 111.
It’s nothing like swissair 111
This had the potential to blow up out of all proportion.
A video with full details.
I see none of the comments mention the "real" culprit: Boeing. Their maintenance manual was found to be so inaccurate as to be verging on fiction. However, my memory tells me Cardiff maintenance was no always so innocent. I am sure a BA 747 came out of a C check there and flew back to Haethrow leaking fuel all the way! Can't remember the exact details though.
Hear say and of little value truth betold.
Restrained, logical and brilliant. There will always be housekeeping problems on equipment as complex as modern aircraft, the idea of 6-foot lengths of hazard tape being used to highlight tasks as yet unfinished will make aircraft everywhere much safer. Exceptional video thank you. Curiously I am not subscribed to curious pilot? i'll do that now :) (ex British Airways type here: I was on Comet-4Bs in the 1960s retired now hence the nick') ;)
I do find incidents like this really fascinating. I like how you use the term 'restrained', it's such a great way to describe incidents like this. Fighting against the urge to act too quickly and remain clam and professional throughout. I'm glad you enjoyed it!
@@CuriousPilot90 (I really did find it to be a very exceptional video I was not exaggerating, very best wishes)
As maintenance many times we actually will do stuff like what you said by attaching a really long piece of brightly colored tape or a streamer that hangs down or out visibly so people coming in afterwards can identify exactly what is being worked or needs to be worked.
Even so you still document everything you do such as "Removed XYZ to facilitate other maintenance" or "disconnected XYZ" etc, etc. It is pretty common that as maintenance you will have to remove or dislocate other things in order to gain access to what you are working on. If it has to get turned over to another shift you always make sure it is documented so everyone knows what has been done to the aircraft so as to return it to the proper configuration.
@@FloorItDuh ref XYZ., It is the protocols you speak of that are the duplicates and triplicates of primary safety protocols, I am more than happy to "kowtow" to the engineers who understand the importance both of doing "the job" (ideally the complete job,) and making what is typically the first or second officers external checks prior to a flight the stuff of results.... My respects Sir, without the "ginger-beers" modern aviation: would be impossible., ;)
I wonder who picked up the costs for this error, Boeing, the maintenance company, BA or insurance company?
The follow up recommendations appear to confirm the reputation of BA as one of the most safety conscious airlines out there.
The recommendations aren't made by BA they are made by the authorities as a result of BA's failings. Jez, man keep up!
@@mariemccann5895
Oops, yes. What I meant to say is BA's follow-up TO the recommendations seemed very robust and indicative of an airline going the extra mile.
@@mariemccann5895not entirely true. The airline employs its own investigators who will conduct a parallel investigation to ensure that any lessons outside the boards scope are trapped.
It's the simple things that are sometimes so easy to miss.
I enjoyed your informative and measured narration Thank you Congratulations to the crew.
Not a huge fan of Boeing in light of past events. Perhaps their manuals need rigourous & regular updating especially with the numerous variations and upgrades in aircraft
The 737max a stark reminder
With such complex maintenance and inspection, rather than a trolley full of scraps of paper, each engineer should have a clearly defined series of jobs. He (or she) should see their jobs through to completion, making notes in two columns in their handbook, to ensure that everything they worked on or opened up was safely put back.
Making people personally responsible for their specific jobs, results in a far higher level of job satisfaction, so they do not make mistakes.
As the chief engineer of a theater company, with thousands of lives at risk in event of stupid mistakes, I have use this method for decades with total success.
Scary stuff indeed but at least new maintenance procedures should mitigate future incidents. Had a similar experience with BA on flight to Argentina from LHR. Dumped our fuel over English Channel and returned to waiting emergency vehicles and thankfully no incident. The BA pilots are highly trained and consummate professionals. 🙏🏻
How is they graphics produced?
And you thought leaving the gas cap on the station pump was bad
Jet bridge on a 777 is the second door on the left, first class being on the left after entering the plane …. At the airports I’ve been to anyway. Thanks for the video! Not heard of this one before.
On the 777 you can use either door 1 or door 2 for boarding or disembarking. Depending on the stand they were on would determine which door they can use. But it’s ok to use either door
It's strange how often its the little things that can bring them down .
Wow , that’s crazy to take it back to the terminal straight after landing ! That could’ve been a huge disaster. Imagine if it blew up while passengers were getting off !
We weren't there, but I was thinking similar. Why not wait longer for things to cool down a bit.
It would only happen after inspection and approval by the fire service.
Boeing certainly screwed up the M.M. on that job!
👍🏼
Purge door open should have a cockpit warning light indication.
Travelling on G-YMME tomorrow 25th October 2023 from MRU to LGW.
Safe flight! It's interesting to know the history of the aircraft you are on.
This incident happened 19 Years ago in June 2004, the aircraft is still in use today.
It wasn’t mentioned, but I would assume the mechanic that allowed the aircraft to be dispatched in that condition was sacked?
Always helps if the aircraft manufacturer (in this case, Boeing) actually provided accurately detailed maitenance diagrams and relevant procedures in the first place. Could have been disastrous.
Unbelievable! So daft, so simple.
what app that is be ???
Amasing DetâiŁ
Another MIF (Maintenance Induced Failure). At least it has a happy ending!
How could the fuel have ignited in air? Jet A has a much lower flash point, and vapors would have to be pretty high for an actual ignition.
Bird strike ... unexpected but possible.
Vapour can ignite and has in the past.
Murthy’s law If it can happen it probably will Great job by the flight crew
Center wing fuel tank?
the plane wasn't filled with a level of fuel higher than the purge door for a month?
it appears so.
Meaning it must have been used exclusively for short haul flights during that entire time. Layman such as myself would expect a plane that's been specifically bought (by a large/global airline) with the costlier ER tanks would be used on flights that make use of that extended range capacity FAR more frequently than that.
I’m not sure about the original 200 series but you’ll have about 60T of fuel in the main tanks which equates to about 7 hours flying time before even using the centre tank.
No. In shorter long haul flights like London to/from east coast USA wouldn’t involve the centre tank usually.
Hello
Yet aother potential incident created by company procedures or documents. Fortunately, this one stayed potential.
Why were they not burning off the center tank on takeoff?? This is usually done to reduce wing stress. Look up zero fuel rating.
They were using the centre tank fuel on take off
Obvious knowing this all ended ok as I flew on this plane 19 years later! (Now based at LGW)
What happens when maintenance makes a mistake? Do they get written up,fired,etc....?????
If they acted maliciously or negligently, I would imagine there would be repercussions for their actions. For this incident, there were many factors that led to this, including the rear spar diagram that was incorrect and procedures that were not clear. Usually Aviation works under a no blame culture, but it was mentioned in the report that the maintenance organisation had a ‘blame’ culture. When it came to the purge door being removed and not logged, no one came forward to say they had completed the work so it was never discovered who removed it in the first place!
@@CuriousPilot90 thanks.
Who do you fire? The person who wrote that section of the manual, the persons who provided the information, the person who signed it off? It's like Software ..Bugs are inevitable ..Human's are fallible ... If you sacked everyone there would be no one left to even think about software. No, you don't sack people, you make sure that you have procedures and standards in place that are ,at a minimum, superior to the standard of quality of the product you are intending to deliver.
I took my car to a Welsh garage once. Same standard of care... (true, no joke).
I took mine to a Garage in England .... they didn't even have a standard of care in the first place. Cowboy's the bloody lot of them! :-)
Boeing manuals! 🙄
Wonder why they didn't dump the entire center tank contents before landing?
You can’t fuel dump the centre tank
@@tomstravels520- yes you can, or at least you can on the 200LR and 300ER.
@@EdOeuna I missed a word at the end. It meant to say “you can’t fuel dump the centre tank alone”. Meaning you can’t just select only the centre tank to dump, it goes from all tanks.
@@tomstravels520 - makes more sense, although can can just jettison from the main tanks.
Boeing: How cost cutting to boost profits kills people. But, just little people.
So with that LDA Versus LDR & Within landing limits of even overweight, They could have stopped entirely with using only Reverse Thrust and spoilers
Why doesn't the Air Accident Investigation have to include all personnel involved in their reports- is that a failure of the legal act or the body itself? Also how many overseas airline management organisation whether government or airlines took note of this incident and ensure their procedures correctly covered this potential situation (33 customers of Boeing 777ER) and part of it is a Boeing failure?
Jet fuel does not give off a flammable vapour so it would need a lot more than a spark to ignite it.
Jet fuel is not that different to diesel fuel or paraffin, it’s just more refined for temperature stability.
Another point is you keep showing the wrong aircraft in the reconstruction.
The aircraft involved is fitted with Rolls Royce Trent 600 engines, not GE90 as shown.
If you can’t get these simple details correctly then i’m unlikely to trust your analysis.
Just about all the holes in the cheese lined up. Thank goodness not all did.
We have seen this too many times before...
Naughty Boeing not to include the info in the maintenance manual ! In fact, kerosene (jet fuel) isn't actually that flammable. It'll extinguish a lighted match and not catch fire.
Vapour catches fire ....
@@nikoscosmos It requires significant ignition energy to do so. Kerosene is far less flammable that petrol/gasoline for example. Not all vapours are equal.
Thats why i love british pilot or europe pilot very safe to travel.i dont want to use any airlines
Why would the brakes be even warm after takeoff, let alone hot? 🤔🙃
I suppose they could have been warm from stop-starts during taxiing, especially at a busy airport such as Heathrow. Not hot though, I imagine, but presumably the crew couldn't take any chances.
@@TheGodpharma
Continuous taxi can generate a lot of heat. There was the story of the BA 747 years ago, with a royal family member aboard, that had to abort. Then there was a 2nd take off attempt and a 2nd abort. Finally, on the third try, they had a truck follow the aircraft down the runway, where it observed smoke, and immediately warned the crew. Granted that was a lot of distance!!
777 brakes don’t really get hot unless heavily used
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 They don't on any aircraft that I know of!
@@cchris874 LOL. Obviously an aborted takeoff is going to generate a lot of heat in the brakes - but never on a normal taxi out and successful takeoff.
One spark? Have you ever tried to ignite Jet A-1?
Now try igniting Jet A1 vapour….
How come this incident only occurred one month after the faulty maintenance procedure?
As stated at the end, this was the first time the center tank was filled to a high enough capacity to spill over. London to Harare is long, about the same distance as London to Mexico City. So, if this plane had been doing London- US East Coast routes, or to the Mid East, the center tank may not have been as full until this flight.
@@cchris874 Cheers
and where is the disaster?
I USED TO WORK AS A TECHNICIAN ON WEATHERSHIPS and SPEEDBIRD (BA) were the worst & laziest pilots. The pilots were very snobbish - as if the sun shone out of their rear ends.