Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
MaksFly wrote:If it is a battery fire, I suppose it is a blessing it happened on the ground and not in the air.
Aren't they supposed to use fireproof containers for lithium batteries?
PPVLC wrote:I was appalled to see the way they kind of dragged that poor man who had to jump for dear life. I hope he didn't sustain serious injuries because of that "help". I also expected a more immediate action against the fire itself.
PPVLC wrote:I was appalled to see the way they kind of dragged that poor man who had to jump for dear life. I hope he didn't sustain serious injuries because of that "help". I also expected a more immediate action against the fire itself.
mwhcvt wrote:PPVLC wrote:I was appalled to see the way they kind of dragged that poor man who had to jump for dear life. I hope he didn't sustain serious injuries because of that "help". I also expected a more immediate action against the fire itself.
A paramedic friend once told me, that while it's best not to move someone without knowing their injuries if staying in place is going to prove serious risk to life and limb then you move that person right away and any way you can and worry about the existing injuries once safe to do so
SeaKing4 wrote:The video up on the thread 1 has been updated. Clearly a loader fire & not started in the pallet, so discount lithium batteries. I cannot believ the workers have stood around & not tried to fight the fire. AA192 now showing as cancelled.
jfk777 wrote:Why would such batteries be transported on a passenger plane when so many fires have been caused by them.
gwrudolph wrote:Unless it is just the angle, I don't see any visible damage to the aircraft? Interestingly enough, I'm not even seeing black marks from the smoke on the fuselage?
mwhcvt wrote:PPVLC wrote:I was appalled to see the way they kind of dragged that poor man who had to jump for dear life. I hope he didn't sustain serious injuries because of that "help". I also expected a more immediate action against the fire itself.
A paramedic friend once told me, that while it's best not to move someone without knowing their injuries if staying in place is going to prove serious risk to life and limb then you move that person right away and any way you can and worry about the existing injuries once safe to do so
gwrudolph wrote:Unless it is just the angle, I don't see any visible damage to the aircraft? Interestingly enough, I'm not even seeing black marks from the smoke on the fuselage?
aeropix wrote:Lucky this happened in HKG, where they can just wheel it on over to HAECO and make it good as new in no time. I wouldn't be surprised if AA had some aircraft scheduled in there for a heavy check anyway. Maybe if one is coming for a D-check they just swap it out with that plane's parts?
MesserJ wrote:gwrudolph wrote:Unless it is just the angle, I don't see any visible damage to the aircraft? Interestingly enough, I'm not even seeing black marks from the smoke on the fuselage?
The underside of the cargo door was exposed to the flames for quite a while, but it's not visible in that picture.
apfpilot wrote:You can see a DG sticker on at least one of the packages that is near the bottom of the loader.
UpNAWAy wrote:aeropix wrote:Lucky this happened in HKG, where they can just wheel it on over to HAECO and make it good as new in no time. I wouldn't be surprised if AA had some aircraft scheduled in there for a heavy check anyway. Maybe if one is coming for a D-check they just swap it out with that plane's parts?
AA no longer is using HAECO and has no personnel there.
flyingdoc787 wrote:Just wondering- If there were crew members aboard, would they have known about the fire? I am guessing they would have been busy with preparing the cabin for the flight and not staring out the window. And once aware of the fire, would they have been required to evacuate?
ssteve wrote:MesserJ wrote:gwrudolph wrote:Unless it is just the angle, I don't see any visible damage to the aircraft? Interestingly enough, I'm not even seeing black marks from the smoke on the fuselage?
The underside of the cargo door was exposed to the flames for quite a while, but it's not visible in that picture.
You can see soot marks to either side of the door, and a cleaner stripe above the door.
This also might mean the interior of the aircraft stinks.
PITingres wrote:Looks like water around the incident area. If they put this fire out with water, it WAS NOT lithium batteries!
Francoflier wrote:flyingdoc787 wrote:Just wondering- If there were crew members aboard, would they have known about the fire? I am guessing they would have been busy with preparing the cabin for the flight and not staring out the window. And once aware of the fire, would they have been required to evacuate?
If the cockpit crew had the taxi cameras up on one of the screens, they will definitely have seen it. Otherwise, they will have been advised by the ground crew or the cabin crew in the back.
SeaKing4 wrote:The video up on the thread 1 has been updated. Clearly a loader fire & not started in the pallet, so discount lithium batteries. I cannot believ the workers have stood around & not tried to fight the fire. AA192 now showing as cancelled.
UpNAWAy wrote:aeropix wrote:Lucky this happened in HKG, where they can just wheel it on over to HAECO and make it good as new in no time. I wouldn't be surprised if AA had some aircraft scheduled in there for a heavy check anyway. Maybe if one is coming for a D-check they just swap it out with that plane's parts?
AA no longer is using HAECO and has no personnel there.
atcsundevil wrote:UpNAWAy wrote:aeropix wrote:Lucky this happened in HKG, where they can just wheel it on over to HAECO and make it good as new in no time. I wouldn't be surprised if AA had some aircraft scheduled in there for a heavy check anyway. Maybe if one is coming for a D-check they just swap it out with that plane's parts?
AA no longer is using HAECO and has no personnel there.
Since when? There were at least 4-5 AA 772s at HAECO when I was there about three or four months ago.