Woodenwonder:
Perhaps the autopilot is not the crew's best friend in these circumstances.
I had the same thoughts, as expressed a while ago in
this post.
Just as a remark: The original information we saw indicated that the problem started at 600 ft, and the autopilot was disconnected by the time the aircraft reached 400 ft. The new information says the problem started at 720 ft and the autopilot flew the plane all the way to 175 ft.
The difference is significant in terms of the potential improvement to the glide distance that a "smarter" autopilot might have enabled. As others have said, the aircraft might have retained enough energy to either allow for a flare or, alternatively, make it to the threshold.
Nickyjsmith:
NSEU,
Check your tank vent, if its blocked you can get a vacuum in the tank that causes fuel starvation. Worse on longer journey's.
When you stop,air seeps in while your looking around and the car runs normal again untill a vacuum builds up again.
Tank vent blocking can indeed be quite nasty. I know of it happening in a small plane, with the result that the tank literally was crunched together by the ensuing vacuum. Fortunately the forced landing went well. But based on that, even on a 777 I'd expect such an event to cause visible buckling on the wing skins before fuel flow to the engines would stop.
Just my £0.02
