Are the A350 & 787 a Fire Hazard?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- Subscribe to @CobyExplores here! / @cobyexplores
Please consider supporting my work by joining my Patreon community:
patreon.com/cobyexplanes
Buy me a coffee?
www.venmo.com/u/cobyexplanes
Airbus Safety Promotion Center: www.airbus.com/en/safety/safe...
Thanks so much to my videographer friends for generously providing excellent B-roll for this video. Go check out and subscribe to their channels for more A+ plane spotting content:
@MirAviationSFO
@FRAproductions
@BrunoLevionnois
Chapters:
Intro - 0:00
Coby Explores - 1:45
How the A350 is Constructed - 3:05
Another Similar Crash? - 4:58
Composites & Fire - 5:35
But...Why Did It Disintegrate? - 7:34
Key Takeaways - 8:47
Airbus Safety & Promotion - 10:39
Outro - 11:37
____________________________________________________________
On January 2nd, 2024, a Japan Airlines jumbo jet struck a small government plane upon landing at Tokyo’s Haneda airport. Both aircraft immediately burst into flames, with the Japan Airlines jet careening down the runway and eventually coming to a halt in an embankment.
When you watch the replays of the accident, it’s hard to believe that anyone survived. But miraculously, all 367 passengers and 12 crew on the Japan Airlines jet made a harrowing escape.
Now, much praise was immediately heaped onto the swift action of the crew. And rightfully so - Japan Airlines has a very strong safety culture, and the crew was well prepared for a swift and effective evacuation. The passengers on board also deserve praise; the vast majority left their luggage behind, and exited the aircraft in a calm and organized manner. It’s no wonder that everyone survived. But the one thing that didn’t survive was the plane.
The plane in question - an Airbus A350-900 - was a smoldering wreck; it’s now little more than a pile of ash and rubble, even though firefighters made it to the scene quickly. Now, the Airbus A350 is unique in that it’s one of the world’s few carbon-composite jets. And on first glance, it sure didn’t look like the material fared all that well in the face of fire.
Considering the damage, it raises the question…did the passengers of Japan Airline flight 516 survive because of the composite fuselage, or in spite of it? In other words, are carbon composite planes like the A350 and 787 a fire hazard? Let me explain…
#A350 #787 #dreamliner #boeing #airbus - Ігри
Keep in mind that the JAL plane landed on a fully fuelled Dash-8. That alone can explain the difference.
Yes
Even metal planes suffer a similar fate when met with this unfortunate scenario. And it's not the like fuel tanks on JAL516 were empty... They probably still had an hour or so of fuel for holding and diversions if needed...
Or maybe the Dash 8 is Fueled and JAL has only few in case of Go-Around. :3
The JAL plane would've still had fuel as well though?
@@d0fishaviation yea it def had a bunc
1. The Airbus stayed intact after obliterating another (albeit smaller) airliner. ⬅
2. The Airbus HELD BACK the fire until all passengers evacuated, even after being doused in fuel. ⬅
3. Yes, the fire, once it took hold, was never going to be effectively extinguished. ⚠
Seems like the first two facts are a huge win for composites.
Yeah honestly, that crash only gives me confidence in the aircraft. The pilot even made some final checks to make sure everyone and all hazardous materials were off the plane. It took a full 20-25 minutes after collision for the flames to enter. This only makes me more confident to fly in an A350
The crash doesn’t change my opinion on an A350s safety. An A350 need to hit something to have a problem. A MAX is a problem.
@@x-gamessimulator1067 Still doesn't change my opinion or flying on a A350 rather than a MAX any day. No airplane does well crashing in to another airplane.
All that a MAX need to break is time.
Hell, I'd argue the crash actually reinforces how *safe* the A350 actually is.
People appear to forget that it crashed into a fully fueled Dash 8, rupturing it's fuel tanks and causing a gigantic explosion, there's not a single plane that would survive such crash without bursting into flames after.
The fact the hull not only stayed fully intact, it proved more than *enough* time for the flight crew to safely evacuate everyone with only minor injuries (which is rare for evacuations like this) shows the A350 passed the ultimate test with flying colors.
It also took 8 hours to completely burn down, which IMHO is impressive when the Asiana 777 burned down way faster than that A350 did. In the end of the day the plane is disposable, insured, and can be replaced, people are not.
@@frylucasindeed . Some materials used by Airbus are less flammable. In fact that seems to be the reason why nobody died .
@@frylucas Pity Boeing dont think like that.
@@timjodice100 Max has proven that the WALL ST scenario doesn't work with passenger aircraft-its not a washing machine. I still cannot forget, the previous CEO's getting off scot free, walking away with $60million plus and 340 dead bodies. What picture does that paint for the existing management? Just do as you like guys, we will cover your arses.
I think the best evidence for how good the A350 handled the fire and crash, is the fact that the videos show how the hull was basically completely intact with no severe fire preventing escape even a while after evacuation had already been completed
Hi.I’m Japanese guy.According to the news report, pilots of JAL A350 were testified that they couldn’t control the plane at all after the crash.So I think that the hydraulic system cut by Q300 and that oil made the fire more serious…
RIP five crews of Q300
@@mfk5533it absolutely does use hydraulics
It’s FBW but still uses hydraulics for the actuation of surfaces…
Does it even matter if the plane burnt down partially or totally? It’s a total loss anyway. The only thing that matters is whether all passengers can get out in time. After that, it can slowly burn all it wants. It seems like the A350 did just fine in that respect.
And fire crews will ultimately find new ways to put out "new" fires. The same goes for EV fires.
This accident showed the A350 is built tough, without a doubt. Yes, the Dash-8 is much smaller, but it is still a 20,000 kg aircraft. The A350 foreward fuselage took the full brunt of colliding with it, and the wings seem to have partially cut into the A350's engines and landing gear. Despite all that, the aircraft finished its landing roll more or less in the same orientation, even with a nose gear collapse. The fuselage remained intact, protected occupants from fire, and the #2 engine was even still running at idle despite heavy damage (the crew could not shut it off because flight control systems were damaged during the collision).
If it partially burns (like the Asiana 777) or is completely reduced to ash like the JAL A350, it doesn't matter at all since once you have such a crash, the plane is damaged beyond repair. At the end of the day the most important thing is to save people. So the further the fire is delayed, the better it is!
Exactly - this video is nonsense. Passengers all got out yet he asks if the plane is safe? Plane is scrap anyhow.
@@Tony-fr4icyou sure didn't watch the whole video did you.
Airbus by any moment now might even build airplanes in South Korea after the acquisition of Korean Aerospace Industries starting with building the A320 in Seachon, South Korea.
To say it all Airbus have more in common in South Korea that one day their will be some kind of Airbus testing area in Seachon, South Korea.
@@x-gamessimulator1067Girl Bye...
@@EmbargomanAirbus is not acquiring KAI. KAI is just a supplier of parts, and they also supply parts for the Boeing too
I thought this was the cause why it indeed turned into scrap ashes.
Oh and, a more simple answer to why AS214 has a much more recognizable wreck is because the only major part of the plane that was damaged was the tail, and it slowly burnt its way to the forward fuselage of AS214, while JL516, the collision between a medium size short haul plane like the Q-300 with a long haul wide-body plane like the A350 is much much, and I mean MUCH more brutal than a tail separation,
Like imagine,
The AS flight has a seperated tail, both engines detached, all landing gears collapsed, and a medium size inferno.
On JL516, the Q-300 (probably) hitted both engines, collapsed the front gear, (probably) hitted the fuel tank, several pieces of the Dash-8 further damaging the A350 in a way that it has a much larger inferno.
And also, the Q-300 was probably fully fueled making a much bigger initial flame. still to early to tell
“probably hitted both”
Probably hit both mate
@@stephenjacobs5640 I said both engines.
@@shooting4star2023 oops
The a350 took a relatively long, long time to burn. Most of the pictures only show the plane well after the crash and only when the fire really got going. All of the passengers did not evacuate for nearly 20 minutes, but even at this time the fire is not completely raging. The plane still had a decent amount of fuel; even though it was near the end of its flight it is a large plane and lands with tons of fuels. The fuel and luggage needed to burn for a considerable amount of time and get very hot before the airframe and rest of the interior start torching. The photos you see next to headline are very misleading, as when you see a gigantic, raging inferno you assume that’s what it looked like immediately after the crash. The charred remains also look bad, but you can see the same thing even with all metal aircraft, it’s just that there a bit more intact metal left afterwards.
All in all, I think the plane withstood the fire very well. It withstood the fire so we’ll that the flight attendants were able to convince the passengers to stay seated even though there was smoke in the cabin. The composite material doesn’t transfer heat as well as metal, and it doesn’t soften a tremendous amount until it reaches a temperature much higher than the point at which metal softens and loses all strength. I think if the a350 was metal there would have been much more impact damage allowing the fire to immediately access even more fuel and luggage and allowing the smoke to spread even more. Even if a metal airframe suffered the same damage, the fire would still have spread much, much more quickly.
All of this fear about composite planes being more of a fire hazard than metal planes is ridiculous and I hope media does not fan the flames of flying fear even further.
I really think the plane survived the crash because of the composite materials, it is more flexible and resistant to abnormal stress, I bet if instead it was a older A330 or a 767 it would have broken on impact.
Hull breaching is an important factor. The flammable material is the baggage, not the fuselage. Bags of clothes, doused in fuel, will ignite and propagate fire faster than the airplane itself.
Once the hull is breached, the flames can start harming the passengers directly.
Fumes entering the cabin would create panic. An un-breeched hull provides shelter from this as well.
The integrity of the hull, and maybe the need for hard compartmentalization, will be part of the review.
We also have to remember that there was a secondary plane with the a350 that lit on fire so we cannot blame it completely on the a350
Who is blaming the A350?
@@michaeldunham3385 those who are questioning it for fire hazard? Duh
@@keisuke5468 yeah you really need to read your original comment because there's no mention of it being a fire hazard
Duh??? Seriously how old you, 12?
@michaeldunham3385 it's in the title and video you blind grandpa
@@michaeldunham3385 why do I have to mention it when that’s the topic of the video? Do you need to be fed with every details like a 12 year old?
I don’t think there is any plane as beautiful and sleek as the A350
The winglets are so elegant and that mask is just the cherry on top. Imagine if airbus just kept the a330/A300 design 😂
A350 is the "Luxury Mercedes S-Class" of planes
B777 is the "Supercar" of planes
@@reatilewrong. 757 is the supercar
@@reatile757 is more like the sports car
Yes, i’m a huge Boeing fan if planes were houses, the A350 would be an elegant modern house
The A350 performed admirably. The evacuation took over 18 minutes. The plane requirement to an emergency evac is 90 sec. An aluminium fuselage would most likely be on fire at the 6 to 7 minute mark... I'll fkly the A350 any day, it is my preferred airplane.
I was looking for this comment. The fact that captain had so much time to persuade last passengers to evacuate tells a lot about this aircraft safety.
The actual evacuation is done in around 3 minutes, given only the front doors and 1 tail doors are functional. The "18 minutes" is for the Captain to check everyone has left the plain.
@@sbeve7445 There was a small number of passengers who refused to evacuate - the captain stayed behind to encourage them to leave the plane
Your comment is wrong in the context prvided@@x-gamessimulator1067
Normally you dont have that time if the plane is on fire like that. That that time was given is only due to the A350 Design@@sbeve7445
It really infuriates me beyond event horizon and back that too many peoples are shrugging off and forgetting about 5 casualty from JCG's DHC-8. This accident was NOT Non-Fatal Accident. 5 Coast Guardsman on their way to Niigata for earthquake relief have perished and autopsy report shows they died from "whole body being crushed"
Another point to note is that both the composite wings of the A350 have largely remained intact ..
The reality is, that once an incident like this happens, the plane is going to be a total write-off anyways. If the composites give a bit more time for evacuation at the start of the fire, even if that means it's more likely to burn to the ground later - I think that is a very beneficial trade. And while I have no evidence, based on the properties of composites burning, I suspect they slow the ingress of an exterior fire to the interior.
The B-2 crash was very different than the Asiana crash in SF or the JAL collision in that both airliners were landing and wouldn’t have full fuel tanks. The B-2 had just taken off from Guam to fly back to the US mainland, so lots of fuel onboard. The Asiana 777 was completing a flight across the Pacific so there wasn’t as much fuel to burn, and the way it impacted the ground doesn’t appear to rip open the underbody fuel tanks like the A350’s collision probably did.
There is a similar effect in buildings .A steel beam will soften in a fire and cease to hold up the floors above it .A wooden beam will take hours to burn .
I work at Airbus, as a Data Analyst.
I really like your content and appreciate it.
I recently had my course at Airbus Safety Promotion Center, it showed the importance to be given for Safety in all aspects of work we do here..
It also depends on how the plane crashed. The Asiana flight lost its aft end after hitting the seawall just before the runway, and only certain parts immediately caught fire. The A350 crashed directly into a Dash 8, hence the immediately high amount of fire in the video.
As usual, excellent video.
The fire fighters gave up on putting out the fire which news agency cited that it doesn't make sense to put fire fighters at risk if everyone had evacuated.
I tried to look for information about the B-2 regarding this bit but wasn't able to do so
Bingo! Airport fire rescue is designed to delay fires in order to permit passengers the best chances of escape & survival. Unlike structural fire departments who enter burning buildings, airport firefighters are neither trained nor equipped to enter a burning fuselage. This was an overwhelmingly successful outcome, given the circumstances, and will likely pose some valuable training lessons for airplane designers and airport fire rescue crews in future.
@@adrianwapcaplet2773 Airport firefighters (ARFF) are equipped and trained to enter a burning fuselage. It's something they practice regularly. However if they get information that everyone is out, they don't have to. In the case of the A350, they got that information. A conventional firefighter is trying to prevent structural collapse because there are likely other buildings nearby that may be occupied. Airport firefighters don't have to do that. The plane was on a runway, away from any other plane except the one it hit.
@@cjmillsnun That is certainly not the case at the airport at which I work, and with the ARFF crews with whom I share an office. Mine is an ICAO Category 10 airport (highest rating), and when an airplane is actively burning, firefighters often don't leave their trucks, which are equipped with "spears" at the end of articulated booms that puncture aircraft fuselages in order to spray foamed water within.
Structural firefighters don't enter buildings to prevent collapse (that's precisely when they DON'T enter buildings); instead they enter solely to extract people who may be trapped within.
@@adrianwapcaplet2773 Interesting because here das.iowa.gov/media/2774/download?inline= states
Combats fires, performs rescue of entrapped persons and performs emergency medical care while
wearing heavy fire protective clothing and equipment.
Entrapped persons will be inside the aeroplane.
The wing fuel tanks of the A350 seemed to fair pretty well; brilliant design feature 😊
As long as the structure holds long enough for people to evacuate then it doesn't matter how long it burns for, once the people are out, then you can fight the fire defensively stop it from spreading to other objects
Never said they werent@@x-gamessimulator1067
Why would we be afraid of flying the A350? It had an accident. It is not like its door blew up mid flight.
I'm thinking of the Tenerife tragedy. The aftermath for those planes liked just like this JAL plane when it was all said and done. And those were aluminum hulled aircraft. It's everything inside the plane that burns so deadly. The seats, the carpets, the plastic overhead bins and inner sidewalls. Air Canada Flight 797 is the perfect example of that.
In tenerife, both planes were taking off, meaning they had more fuel. However, since they were just going to travel a short distance, the fuel levels wouldn't be significantly highr
@@aadamchandoo5014iirc KLM plane's captain decided to refuel on Tenerife which also delayed Panam departure since their plane behind the KLM's
As a former aerospace engineer - thanks! Everyone lived on this A350 - no one should forget this.
Everyone lived on the Alaska 737 too.
@@CaliSteve169 Where is the point? The A350 was involved in a runway collision and the Alaska 737 disintegrated after the start without a reason.
@@woodmasta22 disintegrated? Do you even know what this means?
@@CaliSteve169 In this case a structural part of the fuselage parted from the plane during the flight and crashed to the ground.
@@woodmasta22 ok, now go Google the word "disintegrate" and stop being a UA-cam drama queen.
We have to consider that it wasnt just a bad landing. The A350 crashed into another fully fueled plane. Theres a much bigger chance to have a big fire then just stricking the ground
Now I'm definitely waiting for you to create a rant channel called Coby Explodes 😂
Would like to respectfully point out you could have provided more context for this video.. Unlike the B2 or the Asiana crash, this was an aircraft collision. This a350 at high speed during landing hit another plane that was about to take off on a runway. This is comparable to the Tenerife disaster. It's unfortunate that the other plane got totally destroyed but it also talks to how big of a crash this actually was. The a350 however was still intact and in shape after the impact and managed to buy enough time despite having caught on fire to get everyone out safely. It appears it took a little less than 10minutes upon impact for all passengers to evacuate, with a few more additional minutes for the pilot to conduct his final check making sure everyone was out before he got off as well. The plane would also have had fuel splashed all over itself upon impact as the other plane was about to take off where it would have loaded itself with fuel. So ultimately it may not have been possible to put out the fire from the start, but buy enough time for evacuation.
Honestly, the fact that the last rescue happened 18 minutes well into the fire, and still survived...
That's something to respect.
Airbus investigators are assisting Japanese crews and investigators from the FAA in trying to find out more information and collecting sample data. Airbus are definitely interested in cooperating on this issue
I've flown on the 787 and would not hesitate to fly on it again. It is the most comfortable plane I've ever flown on and I've flown A LOT!! I have yet to fly the A-350 but plan on it as soon as I can afford it! With fares as high as they are, it might be awhile! lol
If we're talking about carbon fibre being a fire hazard, F1 is a good example, A lot of times, the engine catches on fire and the driver is still able to drive some bit before stopping and the chassis rarely gets destroyed, for context f1 cars are 90% carbon fibre, the hull loss I believe was caused due to fuel and Dash-8 was not carbon fibre, maybe that is the reason for survival
Given that evac was apparently delayed by 8 minutes the 350 CF hull held up fine. JAL might want to reconsider their policies that led to that delay.
I was watching the live channel when the passengers were all safely evacuated and I was expecting to see continuous water being poured on the wreckage to put it out when it was still very much intact but they didn't seem to have enough water or something and so it seemed more like they were having to basically let it burn with some water off and on till it burned to the ground. The structure seemed amazingly strong though in the crash and gave them plenty of time to evacuate!
Passengers were out and plane was junk, why risk firefighters lives to put it out
Passengers were out and plane was junk, why risk firefighters lives to put it out
Much like a fiberglass boat its not the fiberglass that burns, its the resin that holds it all together that burns. Aluminum melts at 1,300 degrees when heat is applied to it. Composites dont burn….. its resin does
Boats use polyester resin .Aviation manufacturers use epoxy .Polyester burns like hell .Epoxy is more fire resistant .I make aircraft parts with epoxy and carbon fibre ,and glass fibre .Carbon is stiffer. There are some pretty woven cloths that use carbon and kevlar.
I think worth considering is the fact that there were two fires on the runway, with the Dash-8 initially being the more severe and hence probably engaging the most attention from the firefighters. Had all of the firefighting resources been focussed on the Airbus before the fire really took hold the damage may not have been nearly so bad.
The A350 in Japan is soaked in fuel from the military jet.
Imagine igniting a piece of metal material in fuel. Almost nothing can put the fire out, as jet fuel is extremely flammable. And the A350 shows even soaked in fuel, the plane fuselage can keep the passenger safe long enough for people to escape.
Imagine other planes made with metal, soaked in jet fuel, and exposed to high temperatures. Almost certain the whole fuselage will burn up quickly.
The Japan Air Lines A-350 at Haneda performed better than expected and better than aluminum aircraft in that post-accident fire. The initial flame spread rate was less than that of aluminum aircraft. Adequate means to extinguish the post-accident fire by means available to Haneda airport firefighter personnel were limited and attributed to the almost 6 hours to fully extinguish the fire.
That machine performed exceptionally well. In such a situation the plane must only provide the technical requirements for the evacuation. And it did.
The A350 did not explode or burned immediately. It's really a miracle but I think the plane, the crew AND passengers did the right thing, without any panic...
What composites don’t do is absorb energy as well as aluminum. Aluminum will crush and cushion a crash. Composites can shatter. The A350 has an aluminum crush substructure in the belly of the fuselage. The 787 does not. Hmm.
I think something to consider also is the inside of the cabin and the materials used. Seat fabrics, plastic trimmed seats etc etc
You dont need the aircraft to survive completely, you just need it to survive long enough to get everyone out.
You completely ignored the fact that the dash-8 that was landed on top of was full of jet fuel and killed 5 out of 6 people onboard.
a aluminum hull would transfer the heath from the external fire (dash 8 and fuel and luggage from the hull) much faster to the cabin, with probably letal consequences.
Ultimately the job of the plane is to stay intact as long as possible for passengers to evacuate. Even if it burns down after 6-10 hours, that should hopefully be enough time for everyone to evacuate. Even if the fuselage is intact, almost anyone still in there after more than 5-10 minutes will die from asphyxiation. The plane surviving the fire is relatively irrelevant given it will be written off after any serious fire like this
It is reported the last person evacuated after 18 minutes.
Some years ago the fuselage of a two-seater glider plane built of composites got burned due to overheating the brakes in dry grass. The people tried to extinguish the fire with the foam of a quite large extinguisher but were unsuccessful as the hard foam between the layers contained so much air the plane kept glowing slowly. But this was so slowly that they could dismount the wings, the elevator, and the cockpit instruments. The burning process could not be stopped but lasted for hours.
The plane factory was surprised as they ordered a new fuselage to be fitted with the old wings and the other parts.
So I can imagine that the A-350 burned all night but in the morning not much was left.
Coby failed to “Explane” this properly. Why compare a botched landing with a plane landing on top of another, fully fueled, airplane???
Bear in mind that the a350 and Dash-8 TWO planes crashed with one of them with a FULL fuel tank, the fuel tank of the dash-8 also spilled fuel all over the a350 as the a350 went through the dash-8 and the fire was broken out as the plane was still slowing down on the runway while on fire with wind blowing thought the fire intensing the fire if u know how fire are made, and compared to the Asiana Flight 214 was landing with a low fueled fuel tank and the gear and tail was hit on the ground not the fuel tank,it also didnt start a fire before it landed on the ground after it flipped , and the a350 crashed through Dash-8 due to communication errors not the problem of the plane
Thank you for your very informative videos. And congrats to the new channel, is subscribed!
Great topic Coby!
It now seems, that the composite body of the A350 was actually more fire resistant that allowed passengers to get out in time
Another great informative, non-judgmental video. Just subscribed to Coby Explores!
One must keep in mind that the A350 hit a probably fully fuel loaded aicraft and we dont know how much fuel was on the A350. Maybe the firefighters gave up salvaging the plane and only did the necessary after the people were off the plane.
I am a viewer from Japan and
1st) the dash8 was not a military plane. it belonged to the coast guard and was registered as a civilian aircraft
2nd) after the evacuation firefighters gave up on fighting the fire and concentrated more on safety of the firefighters and trying to not spread the fire to other parts.
in other words they let the plane burn down.
great analysis. thanks for posting
The carbon fiber A350 saved the occupants. They did not evacuate immediately. The crew failed to react as quick as possible.
Interesting you brought up the Asiana Accident, I would think the Emirates accident in Dubai in 2016 would be a better comparison.
I like the current direction of this channel. Analytic look all around.
Actually it burned SLOWER than an aluminum one.
Supposedly it took 18 minutes for the last people to get off the airplane (which is crazy and I am looking forward to reading the official reports on that). That composite fuselage kept the fire out that long. It took the impact of hitting another airplane without coming apart, which would have let the fire in. No way an aluminum fuselage could have done that. Compare to the similar accident at LAX years ago where a 737 hit a turboprop. In that crash, there was fire and heavy smoke in the cabin almost immediately after the impact, and almost half the occupants died.
What happens after the last person gets out is irrelevant. While aluminum won't burn, it will readily melt through in a raging fuel fire. Eventually, the composite itself is going to burn, but if it takes a long time to burn through to the inside of the cabin it just doesn't matter..
Awesome to see a second channel. I really enjoyed the interviews so far an I think it suits the Coby Explanes channel style quite well.
Any chance that we will get to see them here as well or do I have to sub to the other one as well?
I'll be posting different stuff over there - I've noticed that some of the reviews and behind the scenes don't perform as well on here, so it makes sense to seperate them out for the people who are interested in that stuff
Sensational content, THANK YOU!
Older bloke here, traveled on a Cathay 707 into the old Hong Kong - Kai Tak, in the cockpit, how WONDERFUL!
Also flew take off on a Pan Am 747 - 100, in the cockpit - WOW!!!
Aviation is SO DIFFERENT now!
Happy days, thank you VERY much for your work, TERRIFIC!
I wish you would factor into your argument the impact speed of the two planes and the volatility of jet fuel, the fact that the A350 was landing at 150kts... Lots of things contributed to the a350 combusting into flames and the fact that aluminium is poor at handling fire. So an aluminium plane wouldn't have faired better.
The captain got off the plane 17 minutes after it had stopped. That alone tells you that its not. Every metal plane is a disaster way earlier why the 90s evacuation wa put in place. The A350 did not only achieve that time, but way surpassed it. That it slwoly burns with all hydraulic liquid and fuel ignited to to the dash would happen way worse on a metallic plane. As the wings are still kind of complete it hows that its doesnt burn from alone and even hinders it.
The wreckage of this A350 remembers me that of the Air France A340 (a previous generation jet) crashed in Toronto: don’t see many difference
Except that the A340 crash was a runway overrun not a collision with another plane
Who needs science lessons when we have Coby explanes
No matter what the a350 would be written of anyways that damage was not repairabel
Definitely making sure I go on an a350 or 787 next time I fly long hall
I thought rescuers said the 350 performed better than predicted and normal construction
Me as an a350 fan really scared when i knew about this. For me it were shocking news. ((
The actual scary part is that it happened in the first place, not so much the plane. Clearly mishandling by ATC or miscommunication that two planes were landing on the same runway. Someone screwed up big time. That wasn't going to end well no matter the plane type.
“Resistance to fire” doesn’t mean it cannot burn… it mean it will resist the fire for a period of time before it will start burning.
In this JAL A350 it has been reported that the fuselage was able to withstand the fire burning on the outside of the fuselage for more than 15 minutes with little to no smoke observed inside the cabin. This gave them ample time to safely evacuated the aircraft…
Also you can’t really compared this to a B2 crash… that’s a stealth military plane built from “unknown” composite material coated in radar absorbing materials (more than likely to be a fire hazard)
The whole plane is basically cramped cockpit, fuel tanks and a weapon bay filled with high explosives… they can’t exactly pulled right up next to it to put out the fire without verifying the safety of its content first….
2:50, I just fell in love with that montage! Can you suggest me a camera you’re using for such a high-quality filming? Please 😄
Great video. Agreed with the firefighting tactics improvement. All the industry will care about is that you can get everyone off in a major incident, more time to keep people safe and it proves the benefits in composites are better than aluminium in these cases. Great work 👍
As Coby explanes, toxic smoke remains an issue.
I think the destruction was due to the firefighting technique, the firefighters surrounded the aircraft in foam, rather than fighting it head on, letting it burn out.
That's sensible - they also had a burning Dash-8 with trapped people. Plus there have been cases where Firecrews have lost their lives trying to fight the fire once everyone was off, if everyone is accounted for and it's clear the plane is already totalled then it's prob best to let it burn out than risk lives of the firefighters
I heard that the firefighters first priority was to save the passengers not the aircraft. Also, that the water/foam was carried on the fire tenders - and that there was no water supply/Hydrants along the runway! Something to be considered for the future?
Once a plane has crashed its a write off anyway, the fact it burned down in 6 or 8 hours later doesn't matter a great deal as long as the Passengers and Crew got out alive, a long burning plane may effect runway operations but its not like you are going to be using that area anyway until the air investigations of the accident site are done anyway.
It seems the composite did well in this instance ie the survival rate was extraordinary, the fact Japanese people are very orderly and follow instructions no doubt contributed to this which may mean this survival rate may not translate equally to other locations in the World.
You really can't compare the 777 crash to the A350. They were totally different accidents. The 777 was a single aircraft crash, the A350 was 2 aircraft, so the A350 crash was twice as bad. Think about it.
Absolutely wrong, the 777's crash was worse. It was thrown around multiple times before coming to a halt, and was accompanied with fire. The a350's left wing just impacted the right wing of the dash 8. Two very different crashes in terms of intensity
I just had to watch this before my flight
this reminds me of the emirates incident ek521 TRV-DXB
An interesting point is that the last man (pilot) left the Airbus 18 minutes after the crash (it was reported). So after 18 minutes the cabin was still possible for a human to survive. This I found very, very good.
I am not so sure that the JAL crew was so perfect. There are reports that the evacuation started only 6 minutes after landing. I find that very long. It would be worth investigating whether that 6 minutes was reasonable or if the crew was too slow to start the evacuation. What is the use of having a 90 seconds evacuation requirement if the evacuation is only started after 300 seconds?
the japan coast guard dash-8 was fully fueled meanign when compared to the 777-200 of asiana there was more fuel involved meaning more fueld to feed the fire
A350: KIA
0 Fatalities
a noble sacrifice
Sure there are going to be "what if's" in a situation like this. But the main focus should be that 379 passengers and the well trained crew are alive. Sometimes, a miracle is about timing. And the way this played out, there was just enough time that everyone survived. Condolences to the crew of the Dash 8. This could have been much, much worse.
I started watching this video when it had 787 views
Would you like a lolly for when you go potty too?
The evacuation order was given lately after the crash…during this long time, the fuselage saved people for so long minutes...
Nice video! I believe carbon burns easily and the q400 was really flamable since it was fully loaded with fuel
Subscribed! looking forward to the other channel
Finally, the other plane incident no one is talking about!
At 28 meters wingspan and30 tons take off weight, Dash 8 is not a "small turboprop". It is much smaller than a A-350, yet it is not what you would call a small aircraft.
On the other side, the carbon fiber composite fire createsa dangerous cloud of carbon particles, that once inhaled, cause permanent lung damage. So expect that some if the passengers who ingaled that smoke will suffer for the rest of their life.
According to the AV Herald the last person (pilot) left the plane 18 Minutes after the crash. I read that there were passengers too scared to leave the plane and the pilot hat to convince them to use the emergency exits. this is a lot of time while the fuselage hold the flames back and make this survivable for everyone.
This hasn't changed my opinion at all. The Max9 issue right now is influencing my opinion on Boeing overall, though, unfortunately.
I’m reserving judgment until what we definitely know as media coverage by major news does tend to exaggerate what happens and make it seem it’s the end of the world.
If they find out Boeing is at fault through bad design, media will have a heyday.
If it’s a maintenance issue, whether that be faulty parts, counterfeit parts, or just poor quality control on the people working on the plane, then the individual airlines will be at blast.
@@Bobspineable Certainly a fair statement, and I'm not making definitive conclusions yet. At first, I figured it was likely an individual plane maintenance issue, but the deeper things have gone, the more signs there are that Boeing was cutting corners again. Definitely interested to see how it plays out, fully.
Simply Flying must see this Documentary.
Unique means only one. And then you name the first CFRP aircraft. 18 minutes was not a quick evacuation. Sure, everyone got out, but not fast. The Asiana 777 and the BA 777 which both crashed short, were both at the end of their flight and contained little fuel. This A350 had just plowed through a Dash 8, which is not 'small', which was taking off and therefore full of fuel. So these three crashes are not the same. To see how an alloy plane fares in a fire you can watch a China Airlines 737 burn. The fire had broken the back of the aicraft in around 6 minutes. The videos don't start until the fire has already been burning for about three minutes. On the JAL flight, which had already crashed, so it wasn't an undamaged hull to begin with, that would have been 12 minutes before the last person left. ua-cam.com/video/Ppp5eO4uGzI/v-deo.html
1. Fire on runway crash is not the main fire danger; fire in flight is. How well would it compare to UPS Flight 6?
2. A major factor why everyone walked away with zero major injuries was the lack of nose wheel. Reduced the angle of the exit slide massively, meaning no broken legs, pelvis, or fractured vertebrae which is what usually has to be expected on a slide exit from runway. The reason everyone got to the slide so quickly in the first place is Japanese passengers - they have emergency procedures drummed into them in their everyday life, and won’t give a fk about trying to grab their carry on etc.
Nice video, Coby. In respect to your new channel, Coby Explores, I think your assessment of other content providers as being "frankly boring" more than little harsh. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I welcome you trying a different approach to the established channels I have followed for a long, long time. Each of them have their own style and I find merit in all of them, otherwise I wouldn't watch. So on behalf of Noel Philips, Josh Cahill, Paul Lucas, Nonstop Dan, Will at Trek Trendy , Kara and Nate at Daily Drop, to name a few, bring it on, you have some stiff competition. Thanks for sharing.
Best ever UA-camr