Accident: Egyptair B772 at Cairo on Jul 29th 2011, cockpit fire

The Aviation Herald		Last Update: Tuesday, Jan 12th 2016 21:51Z 17893 Articles available Events from Jun 19th 1999 to Jan 12th 2016
www.avherald.com	Incidents and News in Aviation

List by:

Filter:

The Aviation Herald thanks for your help

Accident: Egyptair B772 at Cairo on Jul 29th 2011, cockpit fire

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jul 29th 2011 21:17Z, last updated Saturday, Jul 30th 2011 20:46Z

An Egyptair Boeing 777-200, registration SU-GBP performing flight MS-667 from Cairo (Egypt) to Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) with 291 passengers, was preparing for departure at gate F7 with the passengers already boarded when a fire erupted in the cockpit causing smoke to also enter the cabin. The crew initiated an emergency evacuation. 5 occupants received minor injuries in the evacuations. Emergency services responded and put the fire out. 2 fire fighters were taken to a hospital for smoke inhalation. The aircraft received substantial damage, the fire burned through the right hand side of the cockpit leaving a hole of about the size of the first officer's side window in the fuselage just below that window.

A replacement Boeing 777-200 registration SU-GBR reached Jeddah with a delay of 4.5 hours.

Cairo airport officials reported an electrical cockpit fire was reported extinguished 25 minutes after the alert, the passengers were evacuated, their luggage remained intact. Two fire fighters were taken to a hospital for smoke inhalation.

Cairo Civil Defense reported 7 people were taken to local hospitals.

A passenger reported the emergency exits were not opened, all passengers vacated the aircraft through the smoke and the main doors.

Early stages of fire before arrival of fire fighters (Video: taaaamer1):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYV_K7FAI5g

By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Nov 29th 2012 15:27Z, last updated Thursday, Nov 29th 2012 17:01Z

Egypt's Aircraft Accident Investigation Central Directorate (EAAICD) released their final report concluding the probable causes of the accident were:

Probable causes for the accident can be reached through:

- Accurate and thorough reviewing of the factual information and the analysis sections
- Excluding the irrelevant probable causes included in the analysis section

Examination of the aircraft revealed that the fire originated near the first officer's oxygen mask supply tubing, which is located underneath the side console below the no. 3 right hand flight deck window. Oxygen from the flight crew oxygen system is suspected to have contributed to the fire's intensity and speed.

The cause of the fire could not be conclusively determined. It is not yet known whether the oxygen system breach occurred first, providing a flammable environment or whether the oxygen system breach occurred as a result of the fire.

Accident could be related to the following probable causes:

1. Electrical fault or short circuit resulted in electrical heating of flexible hoses in the flight crew oxygen system. (Electrical Short Circuits; contact between aircraft wiring and oxygen system components may be possible if multiple wire clamps are missing or fractured or if wires are incorrectly installed).

2. Exposure to Electrical Current

The captain (49, ATPL, 16,982 hours total, 5,314 hours on type) and first officer (25, ATPL, 2,247 hours total, 198 hours on type) were preparing the aircraft for departure including reading the checklists requiring the check of the flight crew oxygen system. The first officer conducted these checks and found the oxygen pressure in the normal range at 730 psi. The crew went on with the other preparation procedures, the passengers boarded, the crew was waiting for a delayed last passenger until doors could be closed and the aircraft was ready to depart.

About 30 minutes after the oxygen masks were checked the first officer heard a pop followed by a hissing sound from the right hand side of his seat, fire and smoke came out of the right hand console underneath the #3 cockpit window to the right of the first officer. The captain ordered the first officer to leave the cockpit immediately and notify cabin crew and emergency of the cockpit fire. The captain discharged the fire extinguisher available in the cockpit, however did not manage to put the fire out. The first officer in the meantime notified cabin crew of the cockpit fire prompting an immediate rapid disembarkment via the jetways, then moved on to find somebody with a radio unit, stopped a car on the service way underneath the jetway and radioed the fire department, first fire trucks arrived about 3 minutes after the fire was first observed. Rapid deplanement was completed in about 4-5 minutes. Fire fighters were able to extinguish the fire quickly, all works to extinguish and cool the aircraft were finished about 94 minutes after the onset of fire.

Seven people including passengers, Egyptair personnell and fire fighters suffered from mild asphyxia caused by smoke inhalation and were transferred to hospitals.

The aircraft received substantial damage including extensive fire and smoke damage to the cockpit, two holes were burned through the external aircraft skin at the right hand side of the cockpit, smoke damage occurred throughout the aircraft, heat damage was found on overhead structures aft of the cockpit, isolated areas of heat damage were in the electronic bay below the flight deck where molten metal had dripped down from the flight deck.

The passenger jetway suffered some damage as well including windows were broken due to heat damage, two jacks controlling the canopy at the front were bent due to heat, separation of the canopy, damage to the machine controlling the bridge entrance door due to rushed entry of fire fighters, cracks in the glass of the operator cabin. The jetway was repaired and resumed service on Aug 2nd 2011.

The EAAICD analysed that all actions by the flight crew were prompt and timely, the decision process was efficient and timely. Cabin crew deplaned the passengers efficiently and timely and thus highly contributed to the safety of passengers and crew. Ground crew acted prompt and efficiently after detecting the fire, too.

The aircraft showed no defects that could have contributed to the accident.

The investigation determined there were no fuel, hydraulic or oil lines near the cockpit area where the fire started. The investigation thus focussed on the crew oxygen system reasoning that the speed of the fire development required an accelerant.

The system's stainless steel supply tubes were found without any leakages, the stainless steel spring showed no evidence of arcing/electrical short circuit however most of the wiring was missing near the supply tube with evidence of melting.

The aircraft was found to differ from Boeing's design in that a clamp supporting the first officer's wiring to the oxygen mask light panel was missing. The wiring was not sleeved and a large loop of unsupported wire was found. The investigation determined that about 280 aircraft including all of Egyptair's Boeing 777s were delivered that way.

The flexible oxygen mask hoses were tested for conductivity, some of which were found not conductive with others found conductive.

It was found: "contact between aircraft wiring and oxygen system components may be possible if multiple wire clamps are missing or fractured or if wires are incorrectly installed."

A laboratory analysis concluded: "A short circuit from electrical wiring, which is supposed to be in contact with or routed near the stainless steel oxygen supply tubing, would be the most likely source to provide electrical energy to the spring. It is supposed that the stainless steel spring had been subjected to high energy level, which heated the internal spring until it became an ignition energy source, causing the flexible oxygen hose to ignite and sustain a fire. The time to failure, may took few seconds depending on the amount of energy supplied to the internal spring."

A similiar occurrence, also referenced by the EAAICD, had occurred on a Boeing 767-200 in San Francisco, see Accident: ABX Air Cargo B762 at San Francisco on Jun 28th 2008, on fire while parked, no arson. The EAAICD stated however that the construction of the flight crew flexible oxygen mask hoses of the B762 and B772 differed to an extent that no parallels could be drawn.

Cockpit damage (Photo: EAAICD):

Holes burnt through external skin (Photo: EAAICD):

Smoke damage in cabin (Photo: EAAICD):

Heat and smoke damage in galley (Photo: EAAICD):

Reader Comments:

MH370 v MS667
By Tweakradje on Thursday, Mar 12th 2015 10:15Z

This is the only theory that makes any sense.
It is the Stuart Yeh hypotheses.
MH370 777 was produced in the same time as the Egypt Air 777 that had a cockpit fire when on the ground.
EgyptAir 667 was serial number 28423; MH370 was serial number 28420.
The first officer's oxygen mask supply tubing caught fire, burning holes through the cockpit fuselage. Cause: during assembly there was no insulation on the (conductive) tubing.
Can anyone confirm that Malaysia did fix this following the Boeing service bulletin?
Boeing should run a simulation of this based on the known facts of MH370 and info they gathered from this EgyptAir cockpit fire.

MH370 v MS667
By Robert Alexander on Saturday, Mar 7th 2015 04:46Z

If MH370 did experience a cockpit or other onboard fire, how could it remain airborne for more than 15 minutes or so?

1. The pictures above of MS667's scorched cockpit and punctured skin probably mean failure of airframe and/or autopilot for a craft at cruising at 35,000 feet and 542 mph.

2. Swissair 111 was only in the air for 21 minutes after pilots first detected the odor of smoke-- and their autopilot failed seven minutes prior to impact.

3. The first sentence of the oil worker's email about what he witnessed says, "I believe I saw the Malaysian Airlines plane come down." Tellingly, he includes surface sea current direction and speed. Why would he do that if he thought the plane was still flying?

MH370 v MS667
By Simon Gunson on Saturday, Nov 15th 2014 00:24Z

At 35,000ft this same type of incident would first incapacitate the crew before the hull was breached. The Egyptair fire breached the hull in less than 30 seconds.

At 35,000ft and 471 knots there would be a huge flare of flame through this hole for a few seconds before pressure dropped inside the cabin. This flaring of flames outside perfectly matches what oil rig worker Mike McKay reported he saw.

As the cabin lost pressure pilots would only have 30-40 seconds of useful consciousness.

That implies for MH370 the pilots must have reversed course trying to deal with an emergency before catastrophe struck.

The Captain of JAL750 said he spoke with MH370 on 121.5 MHz the international distress frequency after 17:30 UTC, therefore the pilots were trying to deal with it up until just before 17:35 UTC.

MH 370: Was it being piloted?
By Ivan on Sunday, Apr 13th 2014 14:44Z

@Dan

Thanks for the airport info.

The question is, what diversion airport would have been programmed in at that stage given standard procedures for MH 370 on that route?

If the nearest airport was as you noted on the east coast, then once MH 370 reach that on autopilot, it would just continue flying at the end of the programming.

That would explain the porpoising behavior for the rest of the duration across the Peninsular.

Apparently the co-pilot's cell phone was pinged by a tower (connected) and some leaker from Malaysia is now saying a "call" was deliberately made.

That is a false interpretation. A "connect" with a tower happens when the phone is in range, and all it indicates is the co-pilot had his phone on (probably in violation of some rule about phone in airplane mode) but it is not evidence of a live person trying to send a message.

777 FMC ALTN page
By A. Saint-Ex on Saturday, Apr 5th 2014 21:03Z

On Apr 3rd 2014 18:59Z "Dr. Den" wrote:

>The Boeing 777 is a fantastically fine machine with redundant systems throughout. >Although a fast-moving fire in the cockpit could disable the pilots quickly, there >was enough time to re-position the controls for a hairpin departure from the >original flight path. That says to me that there was time to key the mike for a >mayday call which only takes a couple seconds. This did not happen.

To change course to an emergency airport all a 777 pilot has to do is go to the ALTN page of the FMC and select and execute DIVERT NOW. The aircraft will then turn and fly to the emergency airport, although it won't start a descent until a lower altitude is selected in the MCP.

And making a "mayday call" is low down on the priority list of "aviate, navigate, communicate". It's not as if anyone on the ground or in another aircraft is going to be able to do anything to help you in a catastrophic situation such as this, while at 35,000 feet.

777
By Dr. Den on Thursday, Apr 3rd 2014 18:59Z

The Boeing 777 is a fantastically fine machine with redundant systems throughout. Although a fast-moving fire in the cockpit could disable the pilots quickly, there was enough time to re-position the controls for a hairpin departure from the original flight path. That says to me that there was time to key the mike for a mayday call which only takes a couple seconds. This did not happen. WHY? There is only speculation. My theory: The aircraft was hijacked by unknown assailants. It flew northwest to either Pakistan, Iran, Syria or even Somalia. Could it have made it to Somalia? Yes, I think it could have. I believe the passengers could still be alive and the plane intact. If I'm right that would be the best of all scenarios for the grieving families. Let's wait and see. I do not believe the plane crashed in the southern Indian ocean. I also think the Malaysian military radar findings at 1:20 in the morning were suspect and probably nonesistant considering the discrepancies so far!

@Ivan
By Dan on Sunday, Mar 30th 2014 09:52Z

The closest airports from the turning point would have
been Kota Bharu, Gong Kedak or Narathiwat, all on the
East coast. Langkawi and Penang however have longer
runways.

@Ivan
By Dan on Sunday, Mar 30th 2014 09:50Z

The closest airports from the turning point would have
been Kota Bharu, Gong Kedak or Narathiwat, all on the
East coast. Langkawi and Penang however have longer
runways.

MH 370: Can someone run this in a 777 simulator? Part II
By Ivan on Tuesday, Mar 25th 2014 06:34Z

MH 370 Simulation Part II

To get real cute, do the simulation to include fuel burnoff, and see if the plane will porpoise like it apparently did.

Looks to me like the plane went right onto the course that the winds would have blown the plane onto.

Fact: We know the plane apparently executed a programmed turn to an emergency diversion airport.

We know the plane somehow cross the Malaysian peninsular and ended up going south.

There are some questions as to whether it headed north before turning south.

What we do not know, is whether the turns ending up going south was commanded by anyone in charge.

Let's leave that open unless other facts come in that says it is necessarily commanded.

MH 370: Can someone run this in a 777 simulator?
By Ivan on Tuesday, Mar 25th 2014 06:33Z

Run a 777 simulator to see what would happen if the plane arrived at the Penang Airport (emergency diversion) with dead pilots, whether the prevailing winds would have shifted the plane first slightly north west, then blew the plane to the south south east course that put the plane down in the Indian Ocean where it is now being searched.

The winds at 35,000ft (or whatever the altitude it was cruising at) is very different from the ground, but the evidence is at a first look, compelling.

Run a CAE simulation with these winds, and see if a plane with dead pilots, no autopilot (stops when it arrives at alternate destination) but on regular "buffering" commands that prevent plane from going too high low or turning too steeply, would produce the flight path we saw.

MH370 vs Egyptair 777 Fire
By cityjet on Tuesday, Mar 25th 2014 00:19Z

In 1983 a Learjet on a short flight from Vienna to Hamburg suffered a problem where the crew were believed to have become incapacitated shortly after take off. I worked in ATC at the time at the oceanic control centre in the UK and saw the aircraft meandering on Radar through UK airspace at high level, the flight path was straight but erratic. The RAF caught it up but could not see anyone in the cockpit and they turned back short of fuel. It is believed to have crashed into the Atlantic near Iceland but no investigation took place as aircraft was never found.

It is clear aircraft can fly themselves if appropriately configured.

MH370 vs Egyptair 777 fire
By cityjet on Tuesday, Mar 25th 2014 00:18Z

The profile of any fire is likely to have been different to the ground level incident re Egyptair. For MH370 once the hull was breached there would be a rush of air out of the aircraft against the forward speed air into the aircraft at 500kt. The thin air and lack of oxygen variables are likely to change the profile and possibly extinguish any fire compared to the Egyptair ground fire.

The pilots would try and fly the aircraft (Aviate, Navigate,then communicate in that order) they may have been incapacitated or had no systems preventing them from communicating the problem.

Loss of Comms and Transponder - Swissair 111
By Roman Flute on Wednesday, Mar 19th 2014 21:00Z

The crew of an MD11 ran into a cockpit fire (behind them that started in the inflight entertainment system) and started to pull fuse busses. They just had caution and warning indicators to go by so they were trying to find and disable the electrical circuits. During that incident the crew cut the power, inadvertently, to the radio and then at another point in time to the transponder. They had no time to think, as in this case. SwissAir was on hour out of their destination of JFK and only 15 minutes flight time from Halifax. This caused some concern because this flight was the normal flight for lots of UN members. It was a code share with Delta I believe. Someone might need to correct me on that. A crew could easily, and one has, unknowingly shut off comms and transponder without touching the system. George could still be active as well as a lot of the fly by wire system.

MH370
By J.F. on Wednesday, Mar 19th 2014 18:00Z

When I first heard about the disappearance this was the first incident I thought of to help explain what happened. If the case, I hope it was quick and relatively painless for the crew and passengers. As a pilot, it's just about the worst way I could think of going...

Curiousity of the MAS MH370 Lost
By Cahyana E. Purnama on Wednesday, Mar 19th 2014 05:17Z

Here I need to know more about this discussion, get some important points, and get ready to answer as far as possible about the students' curiosity to know more about the news. So, I do thank for this smart presentation

MH370
By Simon Gunson on Tuesday, Mar 18th 2014 14:12Z

Yes an incident like this could incapacitate pilots without downing the entire aircraft by simply breaching the pressure hull. The oil rig worker saw an explosion followed by a fire which he reported went out quickly by itself. At 35,000ft the lack of oxygen may well have extinguished flames. MH370 was reported (I am not certain on what basis) to have climbed to 45,000ft (presumably from a distant primary radar return at Butterworth). At 85 minutes after take off the Chinese recorded a seismic event on the seabed off Vietnam in roughly the same area. If related, I wonder if the aircraft climbed due to some power surge related to an electrical failure, then stalled and fell supersonic briefly before self recovery heading west?

A supersonic shock wave from an aircraft stalled at 45,000ft might create a sonic boom felt on the seabed like a small seismic event.

MH370
By Steve on Monday, Mar 17th 2014 22:17Z

Ivan, you have hit the nail right on the head.

All the conspiracy theories are a poor fit for the facts. Not that the facts have ever been clearly stated without contradiction. But a fire that disables the aircraft enough to prevent radio and control (and likely killed all on board within minutes with lack of oxygen) but not enough to disable the engines, is the more obvious and least complex explanation.

Porpoising is a very good description of the flight path after the event.

Thanks for your clarity. Something the authorities are struggling with!

I can't believe they can make statements such as ACARS being deliberately disabled before the co-pilots last radio message, and then to find that the ACARS only reports every 30 minutes and was due to report after the loss of transponder.

MH 370
By Ivan on Monday, Mar 17th 2014 05:52Z

The case fits evidence in MH 370 too well.

Oil rig worker in Vietnam spotted plane with a fire traveling perpendicular from normal flight route (either coming or going away from him).

Fire would have caused hull failure and decompression quickly.

Once that happened, the fire burns out with lack of oxygen in thin air.

But pilot and crew would be suffering hypoxia.

Pilot managed to turn plane around before both died.

There was an attempted contact with another plane who only reached them to get buzz on radio --- suggestive that crew either cannot talk (no air) or radio melted.

The plane then flew on without pilots, following the prevailing winds, until it eventually crashed somewhere.

Too good a fit with the facts as known.

Porpoising is very typical of a plane with no pilot.

MH370 disaster
By webster on Saturday, Mar 15th 2014 18:11Z

I believe the cockpit of mh 370 was burned out by an oxygen fed fire like the egypt air 667. One or both of the pilots tried to turn it around and fly it back but because most of the electronics were burned out; flew in big left hand circle direction and then landed and sunk in the Indian Ocean. The wiring may have been installed wrong or on purpose to cause the fire. W.S. Black; ex USAF

MH370
By John on Saturday, Mar 15th 2014 05:27Z

I don't see how this could "explain" MH370. A fire like this would bring down an aircraft in minutes. We have pings that put MH370 over the Indian Ocean hours after loss of communications.

This could be *part* of what happened. We can imagine a situation that involves such a fire. It's possible that MH370 was hijacked by people who knew how to disable the transponders, they turned to fly towards India, and then a few hours later the cockpit caught fire and they crashed. Is it likely? We have no evidence, so it's all just speculation at this point.

MH370
By Mike on Thursday, Mar 13th 2014 04:53Z

If the witness on the oil rig is right and saw fire...I'm afraid that this could have happened to MH370. Same plane type.
Pilots would be incapacitated so quickly that the plane would just crash without any warning and an electrical problem would explain the transponder mystery. :/

By Nahu on Monday, Dec 3rd 2012 20:43Z

What a lucky set of crew and passengers. Imagine the horror had they been airborne.

@Robert 12:48Z
By Dave f/e on Saturday, Dec 1st 2012 03:08Z

I believe the requirement post SR111 was to remove metalized flammable cabin thermal insulation. That insulation being ignited by arcing from retrofitted entertainment wiring to a support clip at a fuselage frame. However it is not exactly known how the arcing occurred or if normal aircraft wiring was also involved.

Written off
By trollmoose on Friday, Nov 30th 2012 09:47Z

The aircraft was subsequently written off as beyond economical repair.

!!!
By FPW on Friday, Nov 30th 2012 07:02Z

"The aircraft was found to differ from Boeing's design in that a clamp supporting the first officer's wiring to the oxygen mask light panel was missing. The wiring was not sleeved and a large loop of unsupported wire was found. The investigation determined that about 280 aircraft including all of Egyptair's Boeing 777s were delivered that way."

Scary. I am often on 777s. Wonder what Boeing has done to correct this?

@JB
By JayCanada on Friday, Nov 30th 2012 04:16Z

Hey,
The way I read it was that 280 777's were designed in a way where they were not sleeved, but should have been clamped. What was not elaborated on was that the CAPT side oxy was designed to be sleeved. This means that the original design had the CAPT side oxy wires sleeved, but not the FO's. Further, the 'unsupported wire' thing was never addressed.

They found that some of the brackets out of the 280 were missing (not all) so they recommended inspection.
They also found that the hose had no design requirements for conductivity, thus they recommended non-conductive hoses.

Boeing's CAP was to inspect and repair the wiring and install a sleeve, and make the hose non-conductive. This prevents wires from chafing and being exposed, and if they do, they will not conduct heat to the oxygen tube.
I'd say it's the most they can do without having the 'smoking gun' fire source and no evidence of over-voltages.

I'm with Gabriel
By (anonymous) on Friday, Nov 30th 2012 03:26Z

Terrifying to think this could have happened in flight!

How to fix this
By JG on Friday, Nov 30th 2012 01:23Z

@JayCanada: Could you expand a little bit on your comment ?

"The aircraft was found to differ from Boeing's design..." only regarding the clamp, and then separate how the new design includes sleeves for wires as per the SB. I read it as 280 777's were built outside specs, which wasn't right."

You're right, it's hard to understand what was not done right.

What happened to the 280 777's exactly? How is Boeing fixing this issue?

Thwo thoughts
By Gabriel on Thursday, Nov 29th 2012 17:17Z

Defects
By JayCanada on Thursday, Nov 29th 2012 16:19Z

Well I do wonder why the bracket for the wires was found missing, since it was reported always a part of the design, however I think this is a great report and Boeing is working to correct the issue.
I will think of this incident when I see aircraft exempt when built before x date.

An oxygen system fed fire by any other name...

Simon, you might want to put in "The aircraft was found to differ from Boeing's design..." only regarding the clamp, and then separate how the new design includes sleeves for wires as per the SB. I read it as 280 777's were built outside specs, which wasn't right.
Thanks for your constantly instant analysis!

Only the most recent 30 comments are shown to reduce server load. Click here to show the remaining comments

Add your comment: (max 1024 characters)
Your IP address 130.211.71.106 is being tracked. We reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Profanities, personal attacks (against any physical or legal person), discussions about site policies, false statements or similiar as well as copyrighted materials from third parties will not be tolerated, those messages will summarily be deleted. Links and mail addresses are not permitted and will not appear in the display, posts trying to circumvent the restriction of links/mail addresses will be removed. We ask for your valid e-mail address in the email field. This address is only used by us to establish contact with you in case of further questions, it will not be displayed anywhere or be used otherwise.
Your Name:
Your Email:
Subject:
Your comment:

The Aviation Herald iOS App
iPhone & iPad
Version 1.02

Support The Aviation Herald

one time

Monthly support

1 €/month

Interview:

The human factor named "Simon Hradecky" and the team of man and machine

Get the news right onto your desktop when they happen