BA B777 from China crashed? at Heathrow

therecklessone

gatecrash wrote: »

On another hopefully, it was a one off mechanical failure, cos otherwise that flight crews career are over

How about we wait for the investigation to start (let alone finish) before we start apportioning blame? :rolleyes:

cyrusdvirus

kona wrote: »

actually its not, a american carriers, i cant remember which one, their 777 ran out of fuel and had to glide in to land.......similar enough to todays incident

Was that not an Air Canada 767??
The Gimli Glider? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

TRO wrote:

How about we wait for the investigation to start (let alone finish) before we start apportioning blame?

How about you think about the tone of the comment before having a go? I wasn't saying anyone is to blame, I was just hoping that no-ones career is in jeopardy over this....:rolleyes:back at ya....

*Kol*

Same happened to Air Transat Flight 236. Longest glide in history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

Interesting to hear the theories, but the investigation will reveal all hopefully. (Bit early to be sacking the crew:p)

Foggy43

*Kol*
How did you get that picture. Possibly from the TF stands but more than lightly for the Virgin / BMI base?

I could see the nose gear still intact from the 170/171 stands. Just a test! Do you know how much remaining fuel G-YMMM had on 'tochdown?'

Edit: With hindsight perhaps I should have went PM with that.

*Kol*

Foggy43 wrote: »

*Kol*
How did you get that picture. Possibly from the TF stands but more than lightly for the Virgin / BMI base?

I could see the nose gear still intact from the 170/171 stands. Just a test! Do you know how much remaining fuel G-YMMM had on 'tochdown?'

I got the pic from Sky News earlier!!

There was fuel on board?? There goes the gimly glider theories!!

cyrusdvirus

*Kol* wrote: »

(Bit early to be sacking the crew:p)

GRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:)

peter1892

Actually the Air Transat A330 incident popped into my head earlier as well....

Anyway, from the reports so far it does sound like the crew did a very good job in getting the plane down in (almost) one piece, and that the evacuation was handled perfectly.

As the old saying goes, a good landing is one you can walk away from!

Foggy43

It had 17,000 kgs of fuel remaining and was scheduled to return to PEK at 1635.

The AAIB hope to have some answers in 48 hours and a preliminary report in 30 days.

I am a little concerned about the 'cabbies' story. When you are driving on the perimiter road your view of the runway is deliberatly blocked. OK! If you are in a bus or lorry you will see the runway.

A Dub in Glasgo

I managed to get a flight out of Gatwick to Glasgow as all the internal flights from Heathrow were cancelled.

*Kol*

gatecrash wrote: »

GRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:)

Sorry! Couldn't resist.

Oilrig

This could have turned out so different, a lot of very lucky people out there tonight.

Can't see how this could have been a crew error, wx OK, home base, etc.

A little surprised at no comms between the a/c and the tower prior to the event though, notwithstanding the Aviate, Navigate, Communicate "rule", if you're going to hit the dirt you'd be pretty keen on giving the services a head start. The reported systems failure must have been total or occurred very late.

I'm sure there will be a lot of '77 drivers and operators watching this one very closely for developments.

Anyway, as happy an ending as you could ask for under the circumstances.

WexCan

Gatiwck surprisingly OK despite upwards of 25 diversions, all ran quite smoothly and had no delays to my flights today.

Cabin crew received no emergency briefing or brace commands, so they did quite well. All slides deployed and passengers evacuated quickly.

A very lucky outcome, could have been a lot worse considering the damage to the aircraft.

crisco10

Foggy43 wrote: »

It had 17,000 kgs of fuel remaining and was scheduled to return to PEK at 1635.

Where did you hear that about the fuel?

Foggy43

ACARS, That wonderful system that tells the ground what is going on.

Edit: I bet you want to know about the engines. As far as I am aware, by 3pm the 17th that is, we were unaware of any engine problems. I should have more info this evening.

kraggy

Oilrig wrote: »

A little surprised at no comms between the a/c and the tower prior to the event though, notwithstanding the Aviate, Navigate, Communicate "rule",

If it was a sudden loss of power as has been suspected (not confirmed in any respect), then Tower POSSIBLY will not have heard a peep from the pilots.

Action first. Then advisory some seconds later. If at all.

They would've been cleared to land 2-4 miles out. They might have been fine until seconds before contact (physically) with the ground. Then bang goes whatever.

Pilots do try to let ATC know about significant information regarding their circumstances. And that's imperative.

But not alway possible.

Sizzler

Was reading online this morning that the plane made an involuntary climb whilst also dropping the power back :eek: Looks like the aircraft management system went baloobas in a major way, theres another theory also that it may have been a bird strike.

Saw it close up as we departed off 27L at LHR last night, totally surreal. They were getting the heavy traffic away on 27R whilst also juggling landings. I saw an AA 777 sit there and watch 6 land in a row and there was no sign of him moving as we taxied past!

We got away about 1/3 away up 27L last night, kudos to the BMI pilot who rotated in no time at all

DublinDilbert

*Kol* wrote: »

Same happened to Air Transat Flight 236. Longest glide in history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

Interesting to hear the theories, but the investigation will reveal all hopefully. (Bit early to be sacking the crew:p)

The Air transit one was amazing that he managed to reach, and safely land on the run way in the Azores... I believe there is a cliff down one end of the run way in the Azores...

They had a fuel leek due to an incorrect part being fitted during an engine swap... Which leaked away all the fuel in one tank. When this happened the pilot consulted his manual which told him he should pump fuel into the empty (leaking) tank.... But he never monitored the situation to check that the level in the second tank was rising and pumped away all his fuel into the leak. I believe also the pilot didn't fully trust the fuel level indicators in the cockpit, it wasn't until the engines stopped that he thought he had a major problem.

Muggy Dev

While Willie Walsh was fullsome in his praise for the crew I thought it was interesting that B.A. did´nt ground their fleet of triple sevens as an immediate precaution.

*Kol*

Muggy Dev wrote: »

While Willie Walsh was fullsome in his praise for the crew I thought it was interesting that B.A. did´nt ground their fleet of triple sevens as an immediate precaution.

That was probably considered. Possibly info available from the pilots was able to determine that the cause of whatever happened was isolated to that aircraft?

APM

Captain Peter Burkill to make statement at 4pm. Will be live on BBC News 24/Sky news etc

pclancy

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/18/servers_flattened/



I've been trying to get in since yesterday...not a hope!

Muggy Dev

APM wrote: »

Captain Peter Burkill to make statement at 4pm. Will be live on BBC News 24/Sky news etc

Not a lot to say about the press conference but we should have a preliminary report from the AAIB sometime tomorrow.

Sizzler

Although nothing official from BA the initial analysis from the AAIU says the plane didnt respond to thrust commands.

Also interesting that the captain got all the praise yet it was the first officer who was actually flying the plane (as is normal)

Foggy43

The only action we have been instructed to take is check fuel drains for water contamination every turnround or ETOP's/Transit check. We used to have to do this but the requirement was changed to the Weekly Check some time ago.
Our management even were about to remove the Daily Check from the B777 maintenance schedule and have it done every 3 days. That may not happen now.

I have heard that some news agency has claimed that BA had problems with a B777 last week on take off. I know nothing of this. Any of you hear this story?

The fuel figure I gave is a load of boll**ks. I appologise for giving duff information. It was in relation to another flight the a/c had done.

Our Engineering HQ is keeping very tight lipped on the event. The BBC are saying the engines would not respond to power increase demands. If the flaps are set to 30 then the power can not be increased. 0 to 25 yes but at 30 no. Looking at the wreckage it is impossible to tell what setting the flaps were at. The crew being introduced to the media probably rules that out.

747-400's were using 27L for take off today.

Oilrig

Re PPrune,

I got in this morning, took about four tries for each step, nothing of any great interest posted TBH, usual stuff - everyone telling each other not to speculate, wait for the report while offering their own theories on why it may have happened...

Foggy, what would the usual flap setting be for that approach?

Foggy43

Oilrig!

I do not honestly know. I am going to discuss this with another LAE. If you have 30 flaps and need a Go-Around what happens. When you press the TO/GA switches on the throttle to initiate the Go Around what happens next?

I have found that some airline simulators you can initiate a Go-Around with 30flaps. A windshear situation at 1,200 feet had flaps at 30 on approach. The flaps were not retracted until an altidude of 3,000 feet was reached.

The airlines issue their pilots notices on how to deal with situations and they can differ.
Flight Crew Notices usually collect dust until something like this happens.

Something from the AAIB http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

Oilrig

Cheers Foggy, guess we're both out of our depth on this one...

Probably best to leave this one for another day, might get mistaken for speculation...:eek:

*Kol*

Foggy43 wrote: »

Oilrig!

I do not honestly know. I am going to discuss this with another LAE. If you have 30 flaps and need a Go-Around what happens. When you press the TO/GA switches on the throttle to initiate the Go Around what happens next?

I have found that some airline simulators you can initiate a Go-Around with 30flaps. A windshear situation at 1,200 feet had flaps at 30 on approach. The flaps were not retracted until an altidude of 3,000 feet was reached.

The airlines issue their pilots notices on how to deal with situations and they can differ.
Flight Crew Notices usually collect dust until something like this happens.

Something from the AAIB http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

Surely that cant be correct? You cant initiate a go around at landing flap settings?? Isn't that the point of a go around that you would have to perform one while you are landing??? Naturally the crew would have to manually retract the flaps but the engines would still respond??

Foggy43

Kol!
I have just read what I have written and I see a bit of an error on I made. I contradicted myself.
I am only talking B777. Flight crews are requested not to use 30 flap on landing because it really is not required. 20 to 25 is sufficient. The engine throttles can still be adjusted at flap 30 but it is frowned upon by BA (maybe others) because of the noise and stress levels on the engine mounting bolts. You will need more power at flap 30 than say 20 or 25 to get the same result.

Just to confirm that in a Go-Around the flap position stays in the landing position until the a/c is in a positive rate of climb and reached a safe altitude.

kona

just taking in all the facts here.

1.why hasnt the B777 fleet been grounded, well at least the ones with those systems.???

I reckon BA have a very good idea of what happened and dont want to say.
If they don't then its a bit risky leaving the fleet flying with a potential fault.

was the plane manually landed, or did it use the ils auto land (dont know the exact name of the system)

the PR crap with the pilots in the newspaper, is rubbish:D:D