Heathrow Airplane Crash!
20 January 2008, 11:44 AM
#181
Does anyone honestly think BA would have paraded the crew in front of the worlds media, given them a statement that allowed them to praise the fantastic work done by all the crew, after having debriefed them and been able to ascertain what went wrong, IF THEY'D BALLSED UP THE LANDING?
Purlease......
Purlease......
Personally, I'm happy to wait for the full results of the investigation
20 January 2008, 11:48 AM
#182
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all of these pilots seem to be perfect as some are making out.
BBC News | UK | Who's high in the sky?
Chip
BBC News | UK | Who's high in the sky?
Chip
Last edited by FlightMan; 20 January 2008 at 12:36 PM.
20 January 2008, 11:59 AM
#183
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, Pilots make errors, the aircraft generally don't generally lose both engines and land short of the runway, pilot error is a factor in a fair proportion of accidents, people do make mistakes, I am sure that as a pilot you must have made the odd one. That is not to criticise what is generally a very professional group of people but you do hear about the odd one going postal or turning up still p1ssed from the night before.
Luckily, as the accident leaves a fairly intact plane with the recorders found and intact, the cause should be easier to find than if it had ended up in the sea or a mountain.
Luckily, as the accident leaves a fairly intact plane with the recorders found and intact, the cause should be easier to find than if it had ended up in the sea or a mountain.
You are being most unfair in making the assumption that there was a crew error which caused the short landing. In the first place, when operating a civil airliner, it is normal for each pilot to fly a leg in turn as the handling pilot in order to gain experience and to keep up their flying skills. A first offcer is trained to be fully capable of doing that and this chap is also a senior 1st officer and will shortly be in line for a captaincy. As he was the pilot in control when the emergency happened the Captain was quite right in letting him continue to land the aircraft since he was best placed to continue at the controls rather than swapping around. I would have done the same myself.
We operated the VC10 to civil flying rules and procedures so I should know what I am talking about.
To manage to stretch the glide from 600 feet and 2 miles on the approach took a great deal of skill and cool flying ability. As they say it was approx 40 secs to the runway from the point at which the engines failed to respond which is right at a groundspeed of about 180 Knots taking the headwind into account. Using landing flap at the last minute to get over the airfield fence onto the grass shows an excellent grip of the situation too. Remember that absolute disaster was staring them in the face!
it is so easy to point the finger and shout about pilot error when we do not know the basic cause of this problem. I would prefer to give them the praise for what they achieved and if it did turn out to be their fault, to discuss it further then.
I can also assure you, that after a long career in flying, you might be very surprised at some of the strange and dangerous faults I have experienced in all the 29 different types or marks of aircraft that I have flown. Machinery and computers can screw up just like that! I even had to reboot the computer to be able to join SN just now.
Yes though I have made mistakes while flying of course, I always managed to avoid a crash! Its part of the job to cross check your own actions in an aircraft all the time.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 20 January 2008 at 12:04 PM.
20 January 2008, 12:10 PM
#184
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the chances that the plane will fly again ?
I am thinking that its highly unlikely but its a very expensive plane and it, to the casual non expert doesn't look that badly bent, I suppose they would inspect it in minute detail and make a decision then.
I couldn't imagine any uk airline running it but I suspect it would turn up somewhere in Africa yf it did get repaired.
I am thinking it will be used for spares.
I am thinking that its highly unlikely but its a very expensive plane and it, to the casual non expert doesn't look that badly bent, I suppose they would inspect it in minute detail and make a decision then.
I couldn't imagine any uk airline running it but I suspect it would turn up somewhere in Africa yf it did get repaired.
I am thinking it will be used for spares.
Plus I don't think there is anyone in the UK who would be able to take on such repair work; it would be a logistics nightmare alone, as in its current state it'll be stuck at Heathrow....well, until they take the wings off anyway.
20 January 2008, 12:12 PM
#185
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Bristol-ish
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from Les, someone also mentioned about some kind of cover-up occuring.....that will not happen.
Air accident investigation is a very serious business. The investigators go in with an open mind, and will report on what they find. It is not their job to point the finger, but to state exactly what happened, and make recommendations on how a similar situation can be avoided in the future.
They are not open to bribes or intimidation!
Air accident investigation is a very serious business. The investigators go in with an open mind, and will report on what they find. It is not their job to point the finger, but to state exactly what happened, and make recommendations on how a similar situation can be avoided in the future.
They are not open to bribes or intimidation!
20 January 2008, 12:50 PM
#186
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting side story to this. Sounds like BA didn't treat the passengers on the plane very well after the crash, according to this story on BBC.
BBC NEWS | UK | Passenger criticises BA treatment
Sounds like pretty crap treatment tbh, I'm surprised BA weren't more helpful, i.e. moving the people to somewhere comfortable with food, drinks, and people to help the passengers. Also just expecting them to make their own way home without any personal posessions (wallets, phones, keys, money etc.) is a bit crap too. 
BBC NEWS | UK | Passenger criticises BA treatment
Mr Tamburro, a 46-year-old father-of-four from Oxford who suffered whiplash and a cut head in the crash, said passengers were forced to wait for hours without refreshments.
He said: "The pilot did a great job to get us down safely as did the staff on board who were brilliant at getting us off the plane.
"However, I wish I could say the same about BA and airport staff once we had been gathered and taken to a departure area in the terminal."
The businessman said passengers had to wait three hours to be processed so that police officers could take statements from them and doctors could check them.
He said the BA staff who were looking after the passengers rationed water, the only drink which was initially offered to them in the departure area, and did not offer any food.
"I asked if tea and coffee could be arranged and this fell on deaf ears. We had to be escorted if we wanted to go to the toilet. It felt like the staff were more interested in security than our wellbeing," he said.
After the passengers were assessed by the doctors, Mr Tamburro claims they were forced to wait another two hours in the departure lounge.
Given that we had just survived a major air crash, I found it unbelievable that there was no counselling available in the lounge
Mr Tamburro said he and his two travelling companions had to leave their hand luggage in their overhead lockers on the aeroplane and so had no money or personal belongings on them but nobody was able to help them.
He said: "No one seemed to know what they were doing and did not seem to take the baggage need into account.
He claimed when the passengers asked how they were supposed to get home without any money at all and asked BA for some petty cash, staff refused to help them.
"All we were given was a printed leaflet with advice on counselling. Given that we had just survived a major air crash I found it unbelievable that there was no counselling available in the lounge", he said.
Eventually the passengers, who are still without their bags, were helped by a police officer who arranged for taxis to take them home on the basis they paid the drivers when they got there.
He said: "The pilot did a great job to get us down safely as did the staff on board who were brilliant at getting us off the plane.
"However, I wish I could say the same about BA and airport staff once we had been gathered and taken to a departure area in the terminal."
The businessman said passengers had to wait three hours to be processed so that police officers could take statements from them and doctors could check them.
He said the BA staff who were looking after the passengers rationed water, the only drink which was initially offered to them in the departure area, and did not offer any food.
"I asked if tea and coffee could be arranged and this fell on deaf ears. We had to be escorted if we wanted to go to the toilet. It felt like the staff were more interested in security than our wellbeing," he said.
After the passengers were assessed by the doctors, Mr Tamburro claims they were forced to wait another two hours in the departure lounge.
Given that we had just survived a major air crash, I found it unbelievable that there was no counselling available in the lounge
Mr Tamburro said he and his two travelling companions had to leave their hand luggage in their overhead lockers on the aeroplane and so had no money or personal belongings on them but nobody was able to help them.
He said: "No one seemed to know what they were doing and did not seem to take the baggage need into account.
He claimed when the passengers asked how they were supposed to get home without any money at all and asked BA for some petty cash, staff refused to help them.
"All we were given was a printed leaflet with advice on counselling. Given that we had just survived a major air crash I found it unbelievable that there was no counselling available in the lounge", he said.
Eventually the passengers, who are still without their bags, were helped by a police officer who arranged for taxis to take them home on the basis they paid the drivers when they got there.
20 January 2008, 01:10 PM
#187
Les, I am playing devils advocate a bit here, I wouldnt say Pilots are as likely as anyone else to make an error when operating machinery, much less likely than most due to the careful selection and rigorous training ,but sill human, you have a much better insight than I will ever have but nevertheless, this is Scoobynet and even the most opiniated and clueless gets to voice their half baked theories !
My own half baked theory involves not enough throttle, then adjusting the throttle, the engines not spooling quick enough compared to what was required, perhaps related to the fly by wire and how it interprets the inputs, perhaps with a change in headwind force involved. Even if it was a Pilot error, beinging back from the brink, as you say shows real skill and avoided us hear the phrase "Makeshift Morgue" on the news.
It does kind of seem similar in character to the Paris Airshow crash when the Airbus crashed into the forest.
The other theory I read about was contaminated fuel, water in the fuel, freezes at High Altitude, then melts as its coming in turning into fuel "Slush" and impeding fuel delivery.
My own half baked theory involves not enough throttle, then adjusting the throttle, the engines not spooling quick enough compared to what was required, perhaps related to the fly by wire and how it interprets the inputs, perhaps with a change in headwind force involved. Even if it was a Pilot error, beinging back from the brink, as you say shows real skill and avoided us hear the phrase "Makeshift Morgue" on the news.
It does kind of seem similar in character to the Paris Airshow crash when the Airbus crashed into the forest.
The other theory I read about was contaminated fuel, water in the fuel, freezes at High Altitude, then melts as its coming in turning into fuel "Slush" and impeding fuel delivery.
20 January 2008, 01:27 PM
#188
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting side story to this. Sounds like BA didn't treat the passengers on the plane very well after the crash, according to this story on BBC.
BBC NEWS | UK | Passenger criticises BA treatment
Sounds like pretty crap treatment tbh, I'm surprised BA weren't more helpful, i.e. moving the people to somewhere comfortable with food, drinks, and people to help the passengers. Also just expecting them to make their own way home without any personal posessions (wallets, phones, keys, money etc.) is a bit crap too.
BBC NEWS | UK | Passenger criticises BA treatment
Sounds like pretty crap treatment tbh, I'm surprised BA weren't more helpful, i.e. moving the people to somewhere comfortable with food, drinks, and people to help the passengers. Also just expecting them to make their own way home without any personal posessions (wallets, phones, keys, money etc.) is a bit crap too.
After you have been bashed about, made to wait, given statements, and have none of your luggage you really don't expect to have to deal with the issues of paying people with thin air! I would have been stuffed, I don't have a bank at home...no wallet means no card, means no money and no ride home. I don't even have a cheque book to pay the cabbie when I got home.
20 January 2008, 04:15 PM
#189
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll buff out.
20 January 2008, 07:27 PM
#190
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: JFK/LHR
Posts: 3,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting side story to this. Sounds like BA didn't treat the passengers on the plane very well after the crash, according to this story on BBC.
BBC NEWS | UK | Passenger criticises BA treatment
Sounds like pretty crap treatment tbh, I'm surprised BA weren't more helpful, i.e. moving the people to somewhere comfortable with food, drinks, and people to help the passengers. Also just expecting them to make their own way home without any personal posessions (wallets, phones, keys, money etc.) is a bit crap too.
BBC NEWS | UK | Passenger criticises BA treatment
Sounds like pretty crap treatment tbh, I'm surprised BA weren't more helpful, i.e. moving the people to somewhere comfortable with food, drinks, and people to help the passengers. Also just expecting them to make their own way home without any personal posessions (wallets, phones, keys, money etc.) is a bit crap too.
Dont believe everything you read!
There are procedures that have to be followed, for legal, medical, and investigative purposes.
They were taken straight to the BA terminal 1 terraces and first class lounges, where food and drink is normally available. These lounges were closed to other passengers for this time.
And they ARE comfortable- I spend enough time in that very F lounge to know that!
Food can not be given before initial medical assesment has been done-for pretty bloody obvious reasons, hence only water initially.
Tvs remain switched off, so that when interviewed the passengers give an accurate version, and not something that they have just watched on the news.
There are obvious security risks, and immigration issues for some passengers- and the baggage and all other things left on the plane have to remain in situ, at what is effectively the aircrash equivalent of a crime scene.
Like I said, strict procedures have to be followed...
20 January 2008, 08:52 PM
#191
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were taken straight to the BA terminal 1 terraces and first class lounges, where food and drink is normally available. These lounges were closed to other passengers for this time.
And they ARE comfortable- I spend enough time in that very F lounge to know that!
And they ARE comfortable- I spend enough time in that very F lounge to know that!
Whenever flying long haul, and if Heathrow is unavoidable to my local airport (I'll do anything to avoid flying from Heathrow), I HAVE to have a private lounge, just to keep me sane. (no offence to passegers who inhabit the normal departure areas, but Heathrow has the largest amount of cretins crammed into such a tiny surface area that it challenges anyones sanity
).
21 January 2008, 12:21 AM
#193
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been away, some sense talked but some drivel has been written too.
From a professional engineer working in the aerospace industry, let me give you a few insights.
This is utter tosh. All western airlines take safety very seriously, in fact it is the No.1 concern of them all. British Airways, if anything, goes further than others regards safety as they have their own data recorders (in addition to those fitted by the aircraft manufacturers) to record lots of additional information to make sure the aircraft is preforming correctly, to predict faults before they occur and ensure the aircraft achieves the highest possible operational availability.
And when it comes to investigating air incidents/accidents, there are no whitewashes. The air investigation authorities around the world are not paid for by airlines or aircraft manufacturers, they are independent. Their remit is to ensure the safety of all airline passengers and if they saw a need to ground all 777's worldwide, they wouldn't hesitate. However, for an aircraft which has an excellent safety record (even if you include this accident), they need to make sure before doing anything hasty. They will find out what it is in this case, it's not like it happened mid-Atlantic and they've only a few bits to work with. However it might be months to isolate the precise cause. These aircraft are complex, thousands of engineers are needed to design the systems on board so it's probably not a five minute task to find out what went wrong.
As for it being "pilot error", they will already have analysed core data from the flight data recorders to show what the pilots did and when and compared to what the pilot's said happened and the aircraft's attitude, altitude, velocity etc. Even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to cover up any basic errors of judgement, so my educated guess is that this has already been ruled out.
Ultimately what happened should not have been possible with the architecture and systems design philosophy for safety critical systems. I wish the engineers well in finding the problem quickly. The findings will be shared worldwide.
From a professional engineer working in the aerospace industry, let me give you a few insights.
BA is a purely commercial enterprise that has been proven to have no scruples whatsoever in the past and therefore cannot be trusted.
And when it comes to investigating air incidents/accidents, there are no whitewashes. The air investigation authorities around the world are not paid for by airlines or aircraft manufacturers, they are independent. Their remit is to ensure the safety of all airline passengers and if they saw a need to ground all 777's worldwide, they wouldn't hesitate. However, for an aircraft which has an excellent safety record (even if you include this accident), they need to make sure before doing anything hasty. They will find out what it is in this case, it's not like it happened mid-Atlantic and they've only a few bits to work with. However it might be months to isolate the precise cause. These aircraft are complex, thousands of engineers are needed to design the systems on board so it's probably not a five minute task to find out what went wrong.
As for it being "pilot error", they will already have analysed core data from the flight data recorders to show what the pilots did and when and compared to what the pilot's said happened and the aircraft's attitude, altitude, velocity etc. Even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to cover up any basic errors of judgement, so my educated guess is that this has already been ruled out.
Ultimately what happened should not have been possible with the architecture and systems design philosophy for safety critical systems. I wish the engineers well in finding the problem quickly. The findings will be shared worldwide.
21 January 2008, 01:43 AM
#194
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Qantas flight landed in Thailand on battery power Apparently, the failure of all 4 PGs was caused by a blocked sink in the galley.
Qantas clears B747-400 fleet after power failure -- Overview Of: Qantas, Power, Aircraft, Boeing, Incident, Safety, Bangkok, Incidents, Flight, Australian, Flights, Electrical
Scary.
Qantas clears B747-400 fleet after power failure -- Overview Of: Qantas, Power, Aircraft, Boeing, Incident, Safety, Bangkok, Incidents, Flight, Australian, Flights, Electrical
Scary.
21 January 2008, 12:46 PM
#195
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, I am playing devils advocate a bit here, I wouldnt say Pilots are as likely as anyone else to make an error when operating machinery, much less likely than most due to the careful selection and rigorous training ,but sill human, you have a much better insight than I will ever have but nevertheless, this is Scoobynet and even the most opiniated and clueless gets to voice their half baked theories !
My own half baked theory involves not enough throttle, then adjusting the throttle, the engines not spooling quick enough compared to what was required, perhaps related to the fly by wire and how it interprets the inputs, perhaps with a change in headwind force involved. Even if it was a Pilot error, beinging back from the brink, as you say shows real skill and avoided us hear the phrase "Makeshift Morgue" on the news.
It does kind of seem similar in character to the Paris Airshow crash when the Airbus crashed into the forest.
The other theory I read about was contaminated fuel, water in the fuel, freezes at High Altitude, then melts as its coming in turning into fuel "Slush" and impeding fuel delivery.
My own half baked theory involves not enough throttle, then adjusting the throttle, the engines not spooling quick enough compared to what was required, perhaps related to the fly by wire and how it interprets the inputs, perhaps with a change in headwind force involved. Even if it was a Pilot error, beinging back from the brink, as you say shows real skill and avoided us hear the phrase "Makeshift Morgue" on the news.
It does kind of seem similar in character to the Paris Airshow crash when the Airbus crashed into the forest.
The other theory I read about was contaminated fuel, water in the fuel, freezes at High Altitude, then melts as its coming in turning into fuel "Slush" and impeding fuel delivery.
Well there are all sorts of possible errors which could have caused it. Anything from fuel mishandling to sheer inattention while flying the approach. I would not accuse them of anything like that until actual proof was shown.
On the powered approach because the wheels and flaps are down to approach setting, there is quite a bit of drag so the engines are at a reasonably high power setting, the VC10 was around 74% RPM, so the engines would spool up quite quickly in this case. The actual power variation is only around +- 2% on a normal approach. It is only from idling that jet engines are slow. The speed was being controlled by autothrottle where you dial in the speed you want and the power is adjusted to maintain it. It is probably fairly similar to the 747-400 simulator which I have flown at Cranebank and it is easy to use and works accurately. Apparently the autothrottle demanded a power increase which was not forthcoming and when the pilot reverted to manual throttle the engines still would not respond. What a nightmare! This may answer your point. In the respect that the engines would not open up, it is just like the Airbus one.
Yes it could have been contaminated fuel as you say but I would have expected the engines to flame out then rather than stick at idling, since that is the impression given so far. Does not look like a bird strike at the moment. Maybe the 45 degrees of bank reported was exaggerated.
I hear that there have been some 12 occasions in the 777 of electrical failure in various parts of the aircraft systems where the system affected has even burned out! Don't like the sound of that either!
It probably wont be too long before we get some kind of an answer anyway. Too much at stake of course and they will want to either clear the aircraft of a possible fault or find out how to fix it if there is one ASAP.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 21 January 2008 at 12:50 PM.
25 January 2008, 10:36 AM
#198
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, cockpit data recorders have given us a better idea of what was going on in the cockpit immediately prior to it all going Pete Tong:
And this was how people waiting to collect inbound passengers were advised of the issue:
SB
And this was how people waiting to collect inbound passengers were advised of the issue:
SB
25 January 2008, 10:49 AM
#199
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRITISH ISSUE UPDATE ON B-777 ACCIDENT AT LONDON HEATHROW
************************************************** **********
The United Kingdom's Air Accident Investigation Board
(AAIB), which is leading the investigation into the January
17, 2008, accident in which a British Airways Boeing 777-
236ER landed short of Runway 27L at London Heathrow Airport,
issued a report today on the progress of their
investigation.
At their request, we are assisting in the dissemination of
the AAIB report, which follows:
----------------------------------------------------------
Accident to a Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM, on 17 January 2008 at
1243 hrs
Initial Report Update 23 January 2008
Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch
(AAIB) 1st Preliminary Report on Friday 18th January 2008 at
1700 hrs, work has continued on all fronts to identify why
neither engine responded to throttle lever inputs during the
final approach. The 150 tonne aircraft was moved from the
threshold of Runway 27L to an airport apron on Sunday
evening, allowing the airport to return to normal
operations.
The AAIB, sensitive to the needs of the industry including
Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Airways and other Boeing 777
operators and crews, is issuing this update to provide such
further factual information as is now available.
As previously reported, whilst the aircraft was stabilised
on an ILS approach with the autopilot engaged, the
autothrust system commanded an increase in thrust from both
engines. The engines both initially responded but after
about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced.
Some eight seconds later the thrust reduced on the left
engine to a similar level. The engines did not shut down
and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine
speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust.
Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was
on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine
control commands were performing as expected prior to, and
after, the reduction in thrust.
All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust
reduction and continued lack of response of the engines to
throttle lever inputs are being examined, in close
cooperation with Boeing, Rolls Royce and British Airways.
This work includes a detailed analysis and examination of
the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the
engine fuel nozzles.
Further factual information will be released as and when
available.
----------------------------------------------------------
The AAIB will continue to release all information on the
progress of their investigation.
************************************************** **********
The United Kingdom's Air Accident Investigation Board
(AAIB), which is leading the investigation into the January
17, 2008, accident in which a British Airways Boeing 777-
236ER landed short of Runway 27L at London Heathrow Airport,
issued a report today on the progress of their
investigation.
At their request, we are assisting in the dissemination of
the AAIB report, which follows:
----------------------------------------------------------
Accident to a Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM, on 17 January 2008 at
1243 hrs
Initial Report Update 23 January 2008
Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch
(AAIB) 1st Preliminary Report on Friday 18th January 2008 at
1700 hrs, work has continued on all fronts to identify why
neither engine responded to throttle lever inputs during the
final approach. The 150 tonne aircraft was moved from the
threshold of Runway 27L to an airport apron on Sunday
evening, allowing the airport to return to normal
operations.
The AAIB, sensitive to the needs of the industry including
Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Airways and other Boeing 777
operators and crews, is issuing this update to provide such
further factual information as is now available.
As previously reported, whilst the aircraft was stabilised
on an ILS approach with the autopilot engaged, the
autothrust system commanded an increase in thrust from both
engines. The engines both initially responded but after
about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced.
Some eight seconds later the thrust reduced on the left
engine to a similar level. The engines did not shut down
and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine
speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust.
Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was
on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine
control commands were performing as expected prior to, and
after, the reduction in thrust.
All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust
reduction and continued lack of response of the engines to
throttle lever inputs are being examined, in close
cooperation with Boeing, Rolls Royce and British Airways.
This work includes a detailed analysis and examination of
the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the
engine fuel nozzles.
Further factual information will be released as and when
available.
----------------------------------------------------------
The AAIB will continue to release all information on the
progress of their investigation.
25 January 2008, 11:42 AM
#200
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very very least I would expect would be as many refreshments and warm clothing as required, free. In addition, BA should have helped people get home using the fastest and most convenient transport available, all at BA's cost.
After you have been bashed about, made to wait, given statements, and have none of your luggage you really don't expect to have to deal with the issues of paying people with thin air! I would have been stuffed, I don't have a bank at home...no wallet means no card, means no money and no ride home. I don't even have a cheque book to pay the cabbie when I got home.
After you have been bashed about, made to wait, given statements, and have none of your luggage you really don't expect to have to deal with the issues of paying people with thin air! I would have been stuffed, I don't have a bank at home...no wallet means no card, means no money and no ride home. I don't even have a cheque book to pay the cabbie when I got home.
Good to see how many professional pilots we have on Scoobynet though. Didn't realise there was so much aviation experience on here.
25 January 2008, 02:59 PM
#202
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that report Mitchy260. Very interesting to see and it looks like it was a good thing that there was still a bit of thrust left from the engines. I was surprised that they had made it to the undershoot as it was. The fact that the engines were at least running even at insufficient power to land with, meant that full electrical and hydraulic power was available which can only be said to be "a good thing"!
It sounds like a serious failure in the engine fuelling system at first sight. Glad they will publish a full report eventually.
Les
It sounds like a serious failure in the engine fuelling system at first sight. Glad they will publish a full report eventually.
Les
25 January 2008, 04:00 PM
#203
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good summary of the current status here:-
BBC NEWS | England | London | The mystery of flight BA038
The captain reduced flaps (and I'm sure read delayed lowering the landing gear) so the aircraft could maintain just enough glide slope to get it to the airfield. They had no margin or error to work with, good team work between Captain and First Officer..
BBC NEWS | England | London | The mystery of flight BA038
The captain reduced flaps (and I'm sure read delayed lowering the landing gear) so the aircraft could maintain just enough glide slope to get it to the airfield. They had no margin or error to work with, good team work between Captain and First Officer..
25 January 2008, 06:01 PM
#204
25 January 2008, 09:20 PM
#206
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't heard any reports of other 777's being pulled for checks & sw patches.
seems strange... obviously until the next one ploughs in, its not a problem then???
You would have thought after the comet incidents, that something like this would warrant a pretty big recall / safety check
Mart
seems strange... obviously until the next one ploughs in, its not a problem then???
You would have thought after the comet incidents, that something like this would warrant a pretty big recall / safety check
Mart
25 January 2008, 09:24 PM
#207
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't heard any reports of other 777's being pulled for checks & sw patches.
seems strange... obviously until the next one ploughs in, its not a problem then???
You would have thought after the comet incidents, that something like this would warrant a pretty big recall / safety check
Mart
seems strange... obviously until the next one ploughs in, its not a problem then???
You would have thought after the comet incidents, that something like this would warrant a pretty big recall / safety check
Mart
It's Boeing, nothing grounds Boeing!
25 January 2008, 10:19 PM
#208
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't heard any reports of other 777's being pulled for checks & sw patches.
seems strange... obviously until the next one ploughs in, its not a problem then???
You would have thought after the comet incidents, that something like this would warrant a pretty big recall / safety check
Mart
seems strange... obviously until the next one ploughs in, its not a problem then???
You would have thought after the comet incidents, that something like this would warrant a pretty big recall / safety check
Mart
I've heard from engineers in the canteen that the aircraft had a software upgrade to both FADECS ( Engine management computers ) before it flew to Beijing. Normal practice is to do them 1 at a time, in case there is an issue.
Last edited by FlightMan; 25 January 2008 at 10:21 PM.
25 January 2008, 11:05 PM
#209
Been away, some sense talked but some drivel has been written too.
From a professional engineer working in the aerospace industry, let me give you a few insights.
This is utter tosh. All western airlines take safety very seriously, in fact it is the No.1 concern of them all. British Airways, if anything, goes further than others regards safety as they have their own data recorders (in addition to those fitted by the aircraft manufacturers) to record lots of additional information to make sure the aircraft is preforming correctly, to predict faults before they occur and ensure the aircraft achieves the highest possible operational availability.
From a professional engineer working in the aerospace industry, let me give you a few insights.
This is utter tosh. All western airlines take safety very seriously, in fact it is the No.1 concern of them all. British Airways, if anything, goes further than others regards safety as they have their own data recorders (in addition to those fitted by the aircraft manufacturers) to record lots of additional information to make sure the aircraft is preforming correctly, to predict faults before they occur and ensure the aircraft achieves the highest possible operational availability.
The context of my "BA has no scruples" comment related to Flightman's post about their publicity stunt to stabilise their share price immediately after the crash -
Originally Posted by FlightMan
Does anyone honestly think BA would have paraded the crew in front of the worlds media, given them a statement that allowed them to praise the fantastic work done by all the crew, after having debriefed them and been able to ascertain what went wrong, IF THEY'D BALLSED UP THE LANDING?
Purlease......
I'm sure you remember BA and their 'Dirty Tricks' not to mention their recent £270 million fine for price-fixing? The comment about their shoddy business practices is proven. I have no reason to doubt their engineering safety standards and did not do so.
P.S. Thought you left Japan?
26 January 2008, 12:16 PM
#210
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts