Airbus fire at Chicago O'hare
Thread Starter
Airbus fire at Chicago O'hare
I haven't seen this reported anywhere else on here, it doesn't appear to have been a big deal but I can imagine the difference had it involved a Boeing product.
The following users liked this post:
Per ADS-B data, aircraft never exceeded 22 kts on takeoff roll. Exited right on GG. ATC instructed aircraft to turn right on N and hold short of Y, implying at that point that ATC expected aircraft to recycle for another departure at 28R. With aircraft at or approaching GG-N, either ATC or flight crew (or both) noted aircraft had a far more serious problem requiring ARFF.
The following 2 users liked this post by BFSGrad:
I haven't seen this reported anywhere else on here, it doesn't appear to have been a big deal but I can imagine the difference had it involved a Boeing product.
Perhaps that's because Airbus are not implicated in quite so many controversies as regards the design, safety, certification and build quality of their aeroplanes?
Thread Starter
Very much why I posted this, but in general term, regardless of manufacturers, how often does this sort of thing occur. My impression is very rarely, but maybe not so much.
The following users liked this post:
I would agree with OL "very rare", engine start sequence and monitoring for modern airliners is mostly automatic from the time the Pilot initiates.
We don't have enough info of this event to categorize.
My experience of wet starts for Dart, RB211, JT8 and JT9's when light up did not occur within a time frame of fuel on/flow, was to select fuel off and continue motoring.
Starter motor time limitation being observed when possible. Poorly rigged HP fuel cock or early design motorized fuel valve failures added to the possibility.
Without exception modern jet engine design incorporates multi drain points, for unspent fuel from combustion zone rearwards, to be safely collected (old designs dumped it overboard) in catchment tank but of limited capacity such that an occasional exhaust fire might happen especially if the motor over sequence is terminated.
We don't have enough info of this event to categorize.
My experience of wet starts for Dart, RB211, JT8 and JT9's when light up did not occur within a time frame of fuel on/flow, was to select fuel off and continue motoring.
Starter motor time limitation being observed when possible. Poorly rigged HP fuel cock or early design motorized fuel valve failures added to the possibility.
Without exception modern jet engine design incorporates multi drain points, for unspent fuel from combustion zone rearwards, to be safely collected (old designs dumped it overboard) in catchment tank but of limited capacity such that an occasional exhaust fire might happen especially if the motor over sequence is terminated.
The following users liked this post:
Back in my pre-retirement days, I would routinely (as in every day or two) scan the 21.3 reports (Boeing calls it "COSP" - Continued Operation and Safety Program). I was looking for issues that piqued my interest, and especially for specific interest to my area (occasionally that was the only way we found out about an incident that had major implications to my area).
There were typically 10 or more new COSP reports every day, many fairly serious. That's what happens when you have thousands of aircraft worldwide, most making multiple flights every day. Even if your system is 99.99% reliable, you're still going to have an event every 10,000 flights (which on something like the 737, would be every day).
While one of my work buddies commented that reading COSP was a good way to put you off flying, I looked at it differently - demonstrating how robust the system is such that these reports were nearly always non-events that the media never saw.
The current microscope being applied to all things Boeing is hugely counter-productive - with Boeing being repeated skewered for events that have little if anything to do with the manufacturer of the aircraft. Just yesterday I saw an article about people boycotting or otherwise avoiding Boeing aircraft because of the recent Singapore turbulence event. While there may be some benefit in convincing SLF to keep their seatbelts fastened while flying, I really doubt Boeing has any responsibility when one of their aircraft is flown into convective weather where the passengers get thrown around and injured.
There were typically 10 or more new COSP reports every day, many fairly serious. That's what happens when you have thousands of aircraft worldwide, most making multiple flights every day. Even if your system is 99.99% reliable, you're still going to have an event every 10,000 flights (which on something like the 737, would be every day).
While one of my work buddies commented that reading COSP was a good way to put you off flying, I looked at it differently - demonstrating how robust the system is such that these reports were nearly always non-events that the media never saw.
The current microscope being applied to all things Boeing is hugely counter-productive - with Boeing being repeated skewered for events that have little if anything to do with the manufacturer of the aircraft. Just yesterday I saw an article about people boycotting or otherwise avoiding Boeing aircraft because of the recent Singapore turbulence event. While there may be some benefit in convincing SLF to keep their seatbelts fastened while flying, I really doubt Boeing has any responsibility when one of their aircraft is flown into convective weather where the passengers get thrown around and injured.
The following 9 users liked this post by tdracer:
Thread Starter
Thanks OldLurker aeromech3 & tdracer for helping to put this into perspective for me & apologies for the vaguely phrased query. Living on the bottom of the big orange with only a provincial airport for company, it is hard to appreciate the massive scale of international airline operations & the sheer number daily movements, though cruising off to N America, Europe or Asia on FR24 does give some idea of what a small fish in a big pond we are. Thanks for the avherald link, that helps.
The absence of informed, intelligent journalism in favour of above-the-fold headlines, bottom-line daily sales and a false sense of legitimacy with regard to the current "Boeing = bad" bandwagon is simply lazy, ataboy work, contributing to the overall poor impression of the MSM, equating them with what used to be genuine trash media.
In fact, the tables are swiftly turning, in which the MSM is becoming more of a legitimate target for the same kind of critiques which have been leveled at Boeing since every media "aviation expert" taking Boeing to journalism-court learned the difference between "port" and "door".
Tidy your own house first, and get on with practising serious journalism.
PJ2
The following users liked this post:
Boeing is reaping the long term weeds of what it decided to sow many years ago. The media scrutiny is merely a by-product.
No journalist can tell the difference between Boeing & Airbus on a good day.
However Boeing consistently provides bad news for the last few years and next few years = headlines = sales.
Stop building ****ty airliners = no more headlines
Also to add; United also seems to be (pardon the pun) pouring fuel on the fire with their completely abysmal operation with regards to any and everything recently so that also can’t help.
No journalist can tell the difference between Boeing & Airbus on a good day.
However Boeing consistently provides bad news for the last few years and next few years = headlines = sales.
Stop building ****ty airliners = no more headlines
Also to add; United also seems to be (pardon the pun) pouring fuel on the fire with their completely abysmal operation with regards to any and everything recently so that also can’t help.
Stories regarding the name Boeing bring in far more revenue $$ and will continue to do so even if they have no more door structures fail .
Why would the LSM look for incidents with the almost--forgotten name " Airbus "?
The US public wouldn't read it because they were not "groomed" by the LameStreamMedia and so-called "comedians".... to notice the name Airbus.
Minor sidenote: even the B-717 in which I retired (in ATL in 2017) originally was an MD product, but the merger with Boeing buried the MD name.
Aside from the civilian world, many years ago the McDonnel Douglas F-15 fighter/strike aircraft designed and manufactured in St. Louis MO (by STL) became known as "Boeing" fighters.
Why would the LSM look for incidents with the almost--forgotten name " Airbus "?
The US public wouldn't read it because they were not "groomed" by the LameStreamMedia and so-called "comedians".... to notice the name Airbus.
Minor sidenote: even the B-717 in which I retired (in ATL in 2017) originally was an MD product, but the merger with Boeing buried the MD name.
Aside from the civilian world, many years ago the McDonnel Douglas F-15 fighter/strike aircraft designed and manufactured in St. Louis MO (by STL) became known as "Boeing" fighters.
The eternally upset seem to miss that Airbus is mentioned in the headlines when an Airbus is involved. You don't see "airplane" or "aeroplane". The selective perception is not Boeing or Airbus specific.
Whenever there is an aircraft incident that makes the news, the first thing I do is look to see what type aircraft was involved - Boeing, AB, Embraer, etc. - and the model. Often, I needed to look deep in article to find that information (occasionally it doesn't even say - and accompanying pictures are of no help since they are usually stock photos that have nothing to do with invent in question).
Lately - if it's Boeing (especially if it's a 737), that's in the headline! If it's not Boeing, you have to read the article to find out.
