BA B777 from China crashed? at Heathrow

ImDave

kona wrote: »

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

Autopilot and Autothrottle engaged on approach until 600ft/2nm out. S.F.O. had control from there on.

FlutterinBantam

Was handling the controls!:cool:

ronbyrne2005

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2001_hero_pilot_romp.shtml

Tabloids assasinating the man's character already.

WexCan

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2001_hero_pilot_romp.shtml

Tabloids assasinating the man's character already.

For christ's sake - that's just out of line. Can nobody have a private life these days?

News of the World? Where's the news?

*Kol*

kona wrote: »

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

Lot's of accidents occur and the entire fleet doesn't get grounded. I think it is rare tha a fleetwide grounding would occur. Especially as there are relly a lot of accidents happening every day all over the world. There wouldn't be a plane in the sky if immediate grounding of fleets was automatic after every accident.

ImDave

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2001_hero_pilot_romp.shtml

Tabloids assasinating the man's character already.

It just shows that no matter how good a job a person does, some people will never appreciate it.

kona

*Kol* wrote: »

Lot's of accidents occur and the entire fleet doesn't get grounded. I think it is rare tha a fleetwide grounding would occur. Especially as there are relly a lot of accidents happening every day all over the world. There wouldn't be a plane in the sky if immediate grounding of fleets was automatic after every accident.

just the fleet with the computer systems on the BA B777 fleet.

kona

WexCan wrote: »

For christ's sake - that's just out of line. Can nobody have a private life these days?

News of the World? Where's the news?

smell of the 80s off those pics, how the hell do those pics still survive.
what a HERO!lol

WexCan

Well if he was with Caledonian it must have been some time ago.

Just someone looking to make some easy money.

Foggy43

We call that rag 'The News of the Screws' in the UK. Great to have friends who supply the gutter press with such info. Luckily no one takes it seriously or I hope they don't.

On the subject of grounding the 777 we engineers are also wondering why Trent powered 777's or A340-600's haven't been grounded. An expert from Manchester on BBC News 24 said something on the lines of no one can afford it. The main emphasis at LHR is get the southern runway fully opened and continue with the fuel drain samples.

It has been a few years now but a Qantas 747-400 just made LHR. As the nose gear touched down the engines died and a tug had to tow the aircraft from the runway. The fuel indicators said the was 3 tonnes of fuel on board. A PAN PAN had already been initiated. Sure enough there was 3 tonnes but not exactly kerosene. It was seriously contaminated with water. Again it is unlikely to be the cause and it should have been discovered by now

Oilrig

The issue of grounding fleets is indeed down to money.

The FAA (US) have calculated the cost of a "life". In deciding whether to ground a fleet they do statistical analysis on the probability of an accident happening and compare the cost of this vs the cost of grounding a fleet.

Based on the results they decide what action they take.

You can't really argue with the logic behind this - how else would you do it?

What you can argue with is the value they place on a "life"

What value would you put on your "life"?

As for the NOTW... Sad, but what do you expect from a rag that composes "articles" to suit the reading ability of your average 12 yr old... Small paragraphs, short sentences, etc etc. Sadly there are some people out there that would prefer to be fed the "facts" rather than be presented with the true story and be left to make up their own mind...

*Kol*

Images point to clues over state of crashed BA 777
David Kaminski-Morrow, London (18Jan08, 16:39 GMT, 329 words)


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Detailed wreckage images of the crashed British Airways Boeing 777-200ER at London Heathrow appear to give several clues as to the condition of the aircraft just before the accident.
Its starboard Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engine fan-blades show little evidence of rotational motion; the cowling appears to have simply scooped mud as it travelled along the ground.
In contrast the condition of the port engine indicates the fan was turning – the blades are badly damaged, many appearing to have snapped off completely, leaving just the blade roots, and there is rotational distribution of debris in the fan.
The images show the auxiliary power unit’s air inlet port – located just below the trailing edge of the rudder – is open, while the ram air turbine, housed just behind the starboard wing root, appears to be protruding from beneath the starboard side of the fuselage.
Deployment of the ram air turbine maintains electrical supply as well as hydraulic pressure for the flight controls in the event of a loss of power, and can be deployed manually or, in the event of electrical power failure, automatically.
The APU supplies electrical and pneumatic power to the aircraft, including compressed air for engine start. While in-flight engine restarts typically use ‘windmill’ air-flow, APUs must be capable of in-flight start-up at cruise altitudes on aircraft certified for extended-range twin-engined operations.
Investigators have yet to determine whether either the turbine or APU was activated during the approach and, if so, whether the activation was automatic or performed manually by the crew.
There have been suggestions that the 777 lost power during its approach to Heathrow yesterday, before it touched down some 300m (1,000ft) short of runway 27L while arriving from Beijing.
Few firm details have emerged regarding the circumstances of the accident. The captain of the aircraft, who today praised the efficiency of the crew, passengers and emergency services in the aftermath of the crash, also disclosed that the 777’s co-pilot was the handling pilot for the approach.






[/FONT]

*Kol*

Crashed 777 engines did not respond to auto-throttle
David Kaminski-Morrow, London (18Jan08, 17:52 GMT, 236 words)


Preliminary investigations into yesterday’s crash of a British Airways Boeing 777-200ER at London Heathrow have discovered that, on the final approach, the engines did not respond to demands for increased thrust.

An initial statement from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch says that the aircraft, arriving from Beijing, was 2nm from touchdown at a height of 600ft, with the autopilot and auto-throttle engaged, when the auto-throttle demanded higher thrust from the two Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines.

But the AAIB says the powerplants “did not respond” to the auto-throttle request, adding: “Following further demands for increased thrust from the auto-throttle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond.”

As a result the 777’s airspeed reduced and the aircraft lost height, touching down 1,000ft (300m) short of runway 27L, to which it had been conducting an instrument landing system approach.

“The investigation is now focussed on more detailed analysis of the flight recorder information, collecting further recorded information from various system modules and examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation,” says the AAIB.

Information on the final stages of the flight has been downloaded from both the cockpit-voice recorder and the flight-data recorder. The AAIB’s investigation is being assisted by the US National Transportation Safety Board, Boeing, the US FAA and engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce. It expects to release an interim report on the accident within a month.

Pure Cork

Foggy43 wrote: »

It has been a few years now but a Qantas 747-400 just made LHR. As the nose gear touched down the engines died and a tug had to tow the aircraft from the runway. The fuel indicators said the was 3 tonnes of fuel on board. A PAN PAN had already been initiated. Sure enough there was 3 tonnes but not exactly kerosene. It was seriously contaminated with water. Again it is unlikely to be the cause and it should have been discovered by now

I haven't been paying attention to the accident, but it could be moisture/liquid contamination of electrical components. If electrical components are contaminated, aircraft can be crippled. It has happened before.

FlutterinBantam

3 tonnes of fuel on a 747 would come into the "unusable fuel" category.

Would be only suitable for wetting purposes to calibrate the fuel quantity sensors.

Foggy43

A certain Asian airline was flying 747-400's arriving in Terminal 3 with 3.6 tonnes of fuel remaining being the lowest recorded and admitted too by the airline. It was going on 1997-99. The minimum fuel for a 747-400 landing at LHR is 6.7 tonnes.

cyrusdvirus

from the Beeb

Auntie wrote:

'Engines running' in crash plane

The report said the engine control systems worked as expected
Both engines of the British Airways jet that crash-landed at Heathrow Airport were still running when it came down, investigators have said.
But the engines did not respond sufficiently to a thrust request as it came into land, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) said.

The AAIB said it was now focusing on the Boeing 777's fuel supply system.

US investigators have noted six previous engine failures in the same type of aircraft, it also emerged.

All 136 passengers and 16 crew on the flight from Beijing survived the crash-landing on 17 January.

The AAIB's investigation update comes as the US National Transportation Safety Board's website listed the previous engine failures.

The most recent was in September 2006, when a Malaysia Airlines' Boeing 777's right engine shut down near Brisbane, Australia.

A UK aviation industry source told the Press Association seven engine failures was "not a large figure" given the aircraft's long flight history.

In its update, the AAIB said the Boeing's twin Rolls-Royce engines initially responded to the request for thrust, but after three seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced and after eight seconds there was a thrust reduction in the left one.

Recorded data shows the aircraft had enough fuel and its automatic throttle and engine control systems had worked as expected, the AAIB said.

The AAIB said it was now carrying out a "detailed analysis and examination of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine fuel nozzles".