BA038 Crew get BA safety Medal

[cwatters]

The Press Association: Crash landing crew honoured (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRxge7Q4LCqACSjaQJhdNLQEUWWg)

The crew of a British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow Airport has been awarded the airline's highest honour - the BA Safety Medal.

The medal has gone to the three flight crew and 13 cabin crew of the 777 which landed short of the runway in January. All 136 passengers survived the crash.

Those receiving the medal include Captain Peter Burkill and his co-pilot John Coward, who landed the plane.

AFP: BA honours pilots, crew for averting disaster (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j_bWQHQuyhH593JI8mzkGUXctr9g)

BA honours pilots, crew for averting disaster

1 hour ago

LONDON (AFP) — The crew of a British Airways Boeing 777 jet, which landed short of the runway at London's main Heathrow airport earlier this year, have been rewarded for their skill and courage, the airline said Tuesday.

The three pilots and 13 cabin crew on BA flight 38 were given the BA Safety Medal for their professionalism in getting all passengers off without serious injury and averting disaster.

The jet, travelling from Beijing with 136 passengers on board, lost power over the suburbs on its approach to the world's busiest international passenger airport on January 17.

Eighteen people were treated for minor injuries after the crash, which happened in sight of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's chartered 747 jet that was preparing to head to China and India, and caused major delays at the airport.

BA chief executive Willie Walsh said in a statement that the medal had only ever been awarded three times before and was given to mark exceptional achievement.

"The crew demonstrated incredible professionalism, first in landing the aircraft safely and then evacuating all the passengers with only a few minor injuries sustained," he said.

"The whole of British Airways is extremely proud of them."

The pilot, Captain Peter Burkill, said it was a "great privilege" but the crew's training kicked in.

[rubik101]

Congratulations are in order.
Well done to them all!
Or am I in a minority of one?

[petermcleland]

No I think you are part of a majority here and I would like to join in and say "Very well done crew and congratulations"...Just Great! and I'm really delighted to hear this news :D

[Locked door]

Nope, it's a minority of at least two.
And I suspect many more.

[flyvirgin]

Finally the crew get some recognition they deserve.:ok:

[Flight Safety]

Congratulations and well deserved. :ok:

[overstress]

Well done ladies & gents - you were thrust (or lack of) in the situation with no warning and you did what you were supposed to do, with no fuss or drama, you just did it.

I'm proud to work for the same company as you - hope I could do the same on the day.

ATB

[arcniz]

Surprised to see merit rewarded in a straightforward way. Well deserved!

What really stands out is that the flight crew were able to focus and to stay out of each other's way and to act resourcefully - with good effect - in the few seconds available when handed such a stunning mess so close to mother earth.

[L337]

It does seem to me surprising that the (deserved) medal has been handed out before the AAIB accident report is released.

One can only assume that the yet to be released report will exonerate the flight crew. So it must be the aeroplane at fault, in some way.

[BOAC]

Hmm. While I indeed hope that is the case and congratulate the crew, knowing BA's PR 'skills' from the past........................:sad:

[Iain Wilson]

Well done indeed to the crew - a reflection of their professionalism that we tend to take for granted.

[chris weston]

No fuss, no histrionics very professional, very impressive.

Total respect.

Part of me says I should never touch BA again (T5 ad nauseum), the more rational part of me says that I should - there's no substitute for quality when it really counts.

CW

[WHBM]

BA chief executive Willie Walsh said in a statement that the medal had only ever been awarded three times before and was given to mark exceptional achievement.Could someone please oblige me with the other three instances.

[alfamatt]

So, W.W gives his crew that he values so highly a medal, & then gleefully shafts them royally with Open Skies & Columbus.
Marvellous. :rolleyes:
Matt.

[GearDown&Locked]

The British Airways Safety Medal

The Safety Medal has been awarded on three previous occasions.

29 December 2000

Captain Bill Hagan
Senior First Officer Phil Watson
Senior First Officer Richard Webb

The award recognised the heroic actions of the flight crew in their handling of flight BA2069 London Gatwick to Nairobi when a passenger stormed the flight deck and attempted to seize the flight controls of the Boeing 747-400 about five and a half hours into the flight.

The flight crew were able to restrain the intruder, regain control of the aircraft and land safely in Nairobi.

19 November 1998

Captain Rick Craft
First Officer Rod Young
SEO David Bennett

Captain Rick Craft, First Officer Rod Young and SEO David Bennet received the Safety Medal after their actions on the BA095 Heathrow to Montreal. The aircraft was on final approach to Montreal when it suffered one of the worst bird strikes in British Airways history. During a go-round the aircraft flew into a flock of geese. The crew had to shut down one of the four engines, suffered a loss of electrical power and had to shut down a second engine during landing. The aircraft landed safely and passengers disembarked normally. When the aircraft was inspected it was found to have suffered extensive damage.

22 October 1995

Captain Tim Steeds
Captain Don Gray
Robert Smith
Bernie Tremain.

The crew were undertaking a routine post maintenance test flight of a 737-200. During the flight the aircraft began to make abnormal movements. The flight crew were able to overcome the flight difficulties and landed safely. Their outstanding efforts during and after the flight ensured that the problem was identified and modifications made.

Extract from here. (http://bapress.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bapress.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=&p_lva=&p_faqid=7464)

GD&L:ok:

[atakacs]

It does seem to me surprising that the (deserved) medal has been handed out before the AAIB accident report is released.
Indeed.

Just imagine that at the end of the day the report pinpoints some embarrassing error by the crew (unlikely at this point I would agree)...

And frankly I'm not sure they deserve such high marks for doing their job as expected. As far as I can tell neither pilots nor flight crew did anything outside their normal attribution. That's absolutely fine but does it really deserve all this ? Should we make heroes and award medals to competent professionals ?! Quite frankly given the timing of the event the biggest factor of all was sheer luck.

[sispanys ria]

Just imagine that at the end of the day the report pinpoints some embarrassing error by the crew (unlikely at this point I would agree)...

And frankly I'm not sure they deserve such high marks for doing their job as expected. As far as I can tell neither pilots nor flight crew did anything outside their normal attribution. That's absolutely fine but does it really deserve all this ? Should we make heroes and award medals to competent professionals ?! Quite frankly given the timing of the event the biggest factor of all was sheer luck.

Who knows what is appropriate to get this medal ? Is there any standard ? So I'm glad for them, but I also find inappropriate to reward the crew before the issuance of a late report... And as far as I remember the AP remained ON for a while after the engines' losses, did George get a medal as well ?

[Porrohman]

I'm surprised that the crews of Flight 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9) (747 volcanic ash cloud encounter over Indonesia) and Flight 5390 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390) (BAC 1-11 cockpit window failure) didn't receive the award. Perhaps their incidents pre-date the introduction of the award?

[Taildragger67]

L337,

Maybe, but even if they did get the aircraft into the problem situation, they were able to make a good landing (ie. one where everyone could walk away) rather than end up on houses.

atakacs,

By that logic we can stop handing out VCs, then.

Even the Soviets had various Orders of Lenin for going above-and-beyond. The fact that aircraft crash from time to time and people don't manage to get out, indicates that 100% survival is not necessarily guaranteed when the stuff starts hitting the fan.

Good on the crew.

[arcniz]

Hmm. While I indeed hope that is the case and congratulate the crew, knowing BA's PR 'skills' from the past...........

Of course it IS self-serving PR for BA, but why not? Might as well go for some closure in the minds of the flying public while the memory is still slightly fresh.

The flight deck fellows are in a difficult position -- of continuing to be exposed to speculative sniping and critique for however long it is until the final findings are settled. Neither we nor they know what will come out of the process, so the chance remains open that something critical of their actions, directly or by implication, might evolve from the technical mysteries still open. Better to give them timely credit where due - on the obvious fact that all aboard survived, "against odds", some would say, as the direct result of their deliberate actions.

Surely the fact of the award will make it somewhat easier for them to carry on with heads high through the long grinding process of post-facto second-thinking and speculation in public and private circles.

[misd-agin]

Can someone tell me exactly what the flight crew did?

[vapilot2004]

Can someone tell me exactly what the flight crew did?

Their job. Quite nicely.

[L337]

Can someone tell me exactly what the flight crew did?

Until the AAIB report is out, no.

Everything else is strictly speculation. But what we do know is the end result. And that was, they all walked away.

[sispanys ria]

It is meaningless to reward a crew while the investigation is going on and any smart pilot will understand why.

The only benefit is for BA's public relations. The message received by the public is that BA's crews are heroes and that you should go for this airline if you want a safe flight (while there is still absolutely no official conclusions related to the causes of the accident...)

That's a great marketing operation that is not only cleaning up the company's image but also promoting it. Well done (to the PR guys).

[rmac]

Or maybe, given some time has now passed, BA are enough in the know to understand that the pilots acted well and are confident enough in the outcome of the report, which may not yet be released for any number of reasons, to make the award now.

I get the uncomfortable feeling that the anonimity of the web allows the most negative of us to snipe from a safe distance.

[misd-agin]

Or maybe, given some time has now passed, BA are enough in the know to understand that the pilots acted well and are confident enough in the outcome of the report, which may not yet be released for any number of reasons, to make the award now.

I get the uncomfortable feeling that the anonimity of the web allows the most negative of us to snipe from a safe distance.
*********************************************************

The AAIB reports have released very limited information on actions the crew did, or didn't do. What actions did they take that improved, or worsened, the situation? We don't know and the folks that are investigating aren't talking.

We always ask for the complete report prior to making final judgements. Fair enough. Then why give awards before the final report has been released? You can't have it both ways.

[atakacs]

Let's see...

As for the flight crew there wasn't much they could do except trying their best to convert height into distance. Leaving the AP on and reducing flap was their answer - I still have to see any hard evidence that this was the best course of action. It was possibly brilliant airmanship but so far we simply don't know.

The cabin crew managed an orderly evacuation in somewhat difficult but certainly not exceptional circumstances.

Again hat off for a job well done. Medal of merit ? At best premature, at worst a shameless PR coup.

[MuttleyJ]

Well done to both the flight and cabin crew.

Makes it sound like BA's a wonderful company to work for, recognising their employees for a job well done. Shame then that it took the company weeks after the event to even send some sort of communication to the individuals involved then really isn't it. :(

[Jumbo Driver]

Surely we should conclude from this announcement that BA, in its internal investigations, must now be sufficiently assured that the crew were not part of the cause that an acknowledgement in the form of a Safety Medal for salvaging a critical situation into a survivable incident, rather than a fatal accident, is entirely appropriate.

I say congratulations to them - especially the Flight Crew - on a professional job, well done.


JD
:)

[chris weston]

misd

You need to read into:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/rumours-news/325095-ba038-777-aaib-report.html

Others better qualified than me can articulate this more accurately but try

(i) flaps 20 to get over the fence

(ii) flared so as to hit the soft stuff

(iii) in less time than it took to type this - circa 50 secs

(iv) ....... with zero training

gets total respect from me.

CW

[Rainboe]

Well done, and well deserved. And having been the subject of some vicious rumours in Cranebank and un-named individuals here, how nice that there is timely tribute to their actions throughout.

[bubbers44]

They made the most of their airmanship skills to make the best of a situation we are not trained for. In 23,000 hours I have never had any guidance as to a procedure if power is being lost on all engines at 700 feet on approach in a large aircraft. They did a splendid job of making it as far as they could to the runway and clearing the fence. I am proud of their flying skills and instinctively knowing how to make the best out of an impossible situation.

[misd-agin]

Chris Weston -

Funny that you mention that I should read the AAIB report. I have, and reread it to see if anything new had been released. No new news.

Here's the facts as released by the AAIB. This is the only description of the flight crew's actions during the event. Absent a release of factual data the rest is speculation.

AAIB Air Accidents Investigation Branch: S1/2008 - Boeing 777-236 ER, G-YMMM (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s1_2008___boeing_777_236_er__g_ymmm.cfm)

The first officer took
control for the landing at a height of approximately 780 ft,
in accordance with the briefed procedure, and shortly
afterwards the autothrottles commanded an increase in
thrust from both engines. The engines initially responded
but, at a height of about 720 ft, the thrust of the right engine
reduced. Some seven 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. The engines failed to respond to further demands
for increased thrust from the autothrottles, and subsequent
movement of the thrust levers fully forward by the flight
crew. The airspeed reduced as the autopilot attempted to
maintain the ILS glide slope and by 200 ft the airspeed
had reduced to about 108 kt. The autopilot disconnected
at approximately 175 ft, the aircraft descended rapidly
and its landing gear made contact with the ground some
1,000 ft short of the paved runway surface just inside the
airfield boundary fence.

Lots of questions, few answers. I'll await the official report before calling anyone's actions 'heroic'.

[vapilot2004]

If the gents up front had done anything less than
proper on this flight, we would have surely heard about it by now
and the AAIB, Rolls Royce, Boeing and others could all go home
and call it case closed on the mysteries of the lost thrust.

[davidash]

Perhaps we should all be grateful that it was only the loss of an aircraft, in an extremely built-up area, with no injuries whatever. What is disturbing is that in this mordern day and age with all of electronic onboard devices, no one yet seems to have an answer. I wonder what goes through the mind of every 777 pilot as he approaches 500ft on finals? I think everyone needs an answer.

[sispanys ria]

The first officer took
control for the landing at a height of approximately 780 ft,
in accordance with the briefed procedure...


...The airspeed reduced as the autopilot attempted to
maintain the ILS glide slope and by 200 ft the airspeed
had reduced to about 108 kt. The autopilot disconnected
at approximately 175 ft,


FO took control or was the AP on ? Anyway it's the last 175 feet that matters..

[M.Mouse]

At risk of starting more futile argument it is BA's way of operating called the 'monitored approach' - the landing pilot i.e. the pilot flying the sector hands over control to the other pilot at top of descent. That pilot then flys the approach until such time as the pilot flying the sector resumes control for the landing.

That point can vary and there is no requirement to hand fly until ready or required to by limitations. Therefore, the first officer, John Coward, took control from the captain who had just flown the approach for him but left the autopilot engaged until it disengaged shortly before the aircraft hit the ground.

[Flintstone]

M.Mouse beat me to it.

Nice attempt at stirring the pot there sispanys but really all you've shown is your lack of understanding of multi-crew and aircraft operations. One can have control with the autopilot connected, it doesn't necessarily mean hand flying.

[Dream Buster]

Flintstone and others,

Just out of interest; does the auto pilot disconnect anyway 'automatically' at 200' or thereabouts if it senses idle power etc. or would it have been the crews lives flashing past and the F/O who manually disconnected it?

Perfect result in the circumstances whatever happened and therefore a great job done by the crew who fully deserve the recognition; albeit maybe slightly prematurely?

The answer will hopefully be in the final AAIB report or maybe it is known already, anybody?

DB :ok:

[TheKabaka]

DB the AP has no such logic, it remains engaged as long as there is not a failure condition that cause the loss of AP. In this case I believe it had trimmed to stay on the GS and eventualy run out of trim causing it to disconnect

[yamaha]

now these guys deserve their medal.

Well done and thanks!

[M.Mouse]

Just out of interest; does the auto pilot disconnect anyway 'automatically' at 200' or thereabouts if it senses idle power etc. or would it have been the crews lives flashing past and the F/O who manually disconnected it?

The autopilot does not automatically disconnect at any height and in fact after landing, when autolanding, will remain engaged until the aircraft stops on the runway unless manually disconnected by the pilot.

BA38's autopilot was engaged in APP(roach) mode and was flying the ILS. With insufficient power the speed was inevitably decaying.

Reasons for an autopilot disconnect can be but are not limited to an input made via the control column by either pilot OR a pilot pushing any disengage switch OR, as mentioned above, perhaps the autopilot system reaching its trim limits.

For the autopilot to disconnect itself after a cursory glance I have not readily been able to find any reference in my manuals regarding what parameters would have to be exceeded for that to happen but I presume the autopilot system would have such parameters.

Edited for technical accuracy following BOAC's comments.

[Dream Buster]

M. Mouse,

Thanks, all as I suspected. I guess we'll just have to wait for the AAIB report to find out what did happen. Well done to the crew; they obviously did the right thing anyway.

DB :mad:

[misd-agin]

I wouldn't be surprised if AOA limit, perhaps via stickshaker or stick pusher, disconnects A/P.

Guess we'll have to see what the final AAIB report says.

[Bearcat]

atakacs Let's see...

As for the flight crew there wasn't much they could do except trying their best to convert height into distance. Leaving the AP on and reducing flap was their answer - I still have to see any hard evidence that this was the best course of action. It was possibly brilliant airmanship but so far we simply don't know.

The cabin crew managed an orderly evacuation in somewhat difficult but certainly not exceptional circumstances.

Again hat off for a job well done. Medal of merit ? At best premature, at worst a shameless PR coup

totally concur with the above.......say's it all.

[SIDSTAR]

Another well-trained crew doing a professional job when things went wrong. All pax evacuated without much injury = excellent work by the cabin crew (+ a little luck - no fire).

Enough to give a medal for? Perhaps, or perhaps it's the BA PR machine kicking in - maybe to deflect from something else coming?

In any case, regardless of the causes of the accident (not yet know to us) a professional crew did a good professional job. Well done ladies and gents!

[sispanys ria]

Nice attempt at stirring the pot there sispanys but really all you've shown is your lack of understanding of multi-crew and aircraft operations. One can have control with the autopilot connected, it doesn't necessarily mean hand flying.

I certainly have lacks of understanding regarding pilots heroic actions with 175 ft of control at high fpm...Some will see airmanship in leaving the AP on, but I hardly imagine a pilot loosing both engines just watching at his AP killing the airspeed. Sorry if my questions are disturbing some of you (I wonder why) but I would like to understand these legitimate questions. Until the report is released, it's hard to affirm anything against or supporting the crew actions (except the cabin crews who obviously did a great job).

[BOAC]

OR a pilot manually disconnected it. - I presume we can take the AAIB words "The autopilot disconnected at approximately 175 ft," to be carefully chosen? (SB 1/2008)

[jetopa]

Shouldn't the (cabin- !) crew of the AF A340 which overran and caught fire in Toronto get some sort of recognition for their 'timely' evacuation of the airplane? And what about the A320-crew of LH who performed this stunt in Hamburg some weeks ago? Some people were seriously proposing this, but...

I certainly do hope that BA is not misusing this for PR.

From a non-777 point of view, it is reassuring that they were sharp when they needed to be - even after a long flight from Beijing.

[Me Myself]

Am I missing something ?? A couple of months ago Cpt Burkill is ranting against BA in the newspapers saying he wants to leave, is house hunting in Dubaï, has written to Richard Branson to get a job, is going to get one with Emirates..........................and now he is getting a medal ??
What made him a happy bunny all of a sudden ??
I must have overslept.

[Rainboe]

You didn't oversleep, you gullibly believed yet another Brit made-up red top newspaper story- they were looking for mud to fling in the works, and made some up and embellished what little they had.

This unfortunate incident has been the subject of more made-up rumours than some serious fatal accidents!

[M.Mouse]

- I presume we can take the AAIB words "The autopilot disconnected at approximately 175 ft," to be carefully chosen? (SB 1/2008)

You are of course correct and I have edited my post above accordingly. On both this and the other BA38 thread I only contribute in an attempt to quash some of the technical inaccuracies and wilder speculation so beloved of contributors.

Am I missing something ?? A couple of months ago Cpt Burkill is ranting against BA in the newspapers saying he wants to leave, is house hunting in Dubaï, has written to Richard Branson to get a job, is going to get one with Emirates..........................and now he is getting a medal ??
What made him a happy bunny all of a sudden ??
I must have overslept.

It has been pointed out that a great deal of tosh has been published by the press regarding Captain Burkhill. Under BA's own rules employees are not permitted to speak directly with the press without permission. So the question might be asked who did and why in this case.

Nobody seems to have mentioned, from a pilot point of view, how the event would have affected us psychologically in obvious and not so obvious ways. Anybody who has ever been in a serious car crash might perhaps have an idea. After a car crash an individual doesn't generally have the press hounding them and their family nor their every action scrutinised, criticised or commented upon but many hundreds of people, with time on their hands and little understanding or knowledge, on an international aviation forum either!

I personally wish people would wait for the final report and leave the crew in peace for the moment. The apt American expression 'armchair quarterbacking' sums up many comments accurately.

[Juan Tugoh]

Jetopa.

It's entirely possible the crews in the situations you mentioned deserve some recognition. However, this is an occasion where "it does what it says on the tin". The crew of BA38 were awarded the BA Safety Medal by BA. If AF or LH wish to honour their crews that is their perogative.

[Rainboe]

Do we know that they didn't? It's up to them. But I see a crew behaving very professionally and competently on a completely surprising incident with no warning whatsoever that with a 140 passengers, they ended up in an aeroplane unaccountably with no power, and by whatever means managed to effect a not excessively hard arrival such that all carbon based life units managed to evacuate without serious injury, although the aeroplane won't fly again! I feel for their realisation that they had a serious problem. Anyone who criticises an award has no appreciation of the responsibilities of the job, so please, can we stop back-biting and questionning this? It's this awful post-incident Pprune Courts Martial again where actions are analysed and questioned on the barest information, except in this matter, it is not the incident itself, but an award arising from the incident! Purrlease....this is pathetic!

[lomapaseo]

My 2 cents.

I simply separate myself from the technical aspects and view it as the typically confused public.

The award provides closure to Nigel public in that BA is not the problem as their pilots can handle even the most difficult of situations.

So maybe its PR, but that is also part of our industry's communication with the paying customer just as journalists are.

[BOAC]

unaccountably with no power - pedant's hat on, not 'no' but 'less than approach'? That error has been made before.

[sispanys ria]

It's entirely possible the crews in the situations you mentioned deserve some recognition. However, this is an occasion where "it does what it says on the tin". The crew of BA38 were awarded the BA Safety Medal by BA. If AF or LH wish to honour their crews that is their perogative.Amen :ok:

Until a report is released, how can anybody judge the crew's actions (heroics or not) ? So why speculating in one direction or another ? There is not even a release of CVR showing how and when the crew realized the failure and if it was intentional to let the AP fly the ILS without enough power. According to the current report, the only flying crew's action that we know is that after AP disconnection at 175 ft they did flare when they saw the rising ground (which should be at least a reflex). So forgive me but I'd rather wait the report before commenting the flying crew's actions since we don't know anything serious about it.
Now, if BA, LH or AF wants to reward their crews, it's their choices but without official report it doesn't have any value to me (appart PR...)

Sorry if some people still feel offended by my logic.

[jetopa]

'It's entirely possible the crews in the situations you mentioned deserve some recognition. However, this is an occasion where "it does what it says on the tin". The crew of BA38 were awarded the BA Safety Medal by BA. If AF or LH wish to honour their crews that is their perogative.'

@ Jean Tugoh: You're right. I wasn't trying to downplay the role the BA-crew most probably have played.

But it is noteworthy that the girls and guys back in the cabin sometimes are doing a commendable job and do save the day. I remember another expeditious evacuation after a landing overrun in Warsaw in the beginning of the 90's.

The recent LH incident in HAM was maybe a bad example...

[misd-agin]

sispanys ria - "According to the current report, the only flying crew's action that we know is that after AP disconnection at 175 ft they did flare when they saw the rising ground (which should be at least a reflex)."

********************************************************

OK, maybe I missed it be where does an official AAIB statement reflect any flare done by the flight crew or even the ability to flare the a/c?

[Me Myself]

The thing is we don't have an AF medal with which we can honour crews. We're actually not into the crew honouring business unless they are dead. The Concorde guys have a nice plaque on a wall somewhere in the building and near the train station at CDG.........for all they care.
We're not into pageantry anyway exept on Bastille day that is. They give the " légion d'honneur " like parking tickets nowadays, even to football players !! How pathetic is that ?? I'd rather have nothing and a clear conscience of a job well done.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Was the Medal not awarded to the crew that suffered AEFlO due to volcanic ash ingestion {don't remember the flight no.}?

[nicolai]

BA flight 9, flew into a cloud of volcanic ash over Indonesia?
Wikipedia says yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9) and BALPA lists them as recipients of their Oustanding Airmanship Award (http://www.balpa.org.uk/intranet/Outstandin/OAA-layout.pdf)
I just hope that if ever faced with the same situation, I have the sang froid to announce something like"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress." instead of just swearing a lot...

[Pugilistic Animus]

Yes, I did mean BA 09---thanks for the answer and the link :)

PA

[MungoP]

I just hope that if ever faced with the same situation, I have the sang froid to announce something like"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress." instead of just swearing a lot...

Personally, in that situation, if I was SLF I would not want the flightcrew to waste one precious moment talking to me... they could swear as much as they wanted... just as long as they got at least one engine back on line.

[Pugilistic Animus]

MungoP--you sound like a pilot --- not SLF---they'd most likely want an update emailed to their Blackberries--via digital uplink--every five minutes:}

{really though, those pax also handled the situation very well with the proverbial 'stiff upper' so they say---good on them too:D--they did good too:}

[sandbank]

Surely if the crew are to receive medals then, at the very least, the autopilot deserves one too?

[shawk]

A tip of the hat all around.

[sispanys ria]

I'm quite amazed by the administrators' attitude regarding this topic. Following my comments on this quite surprising reward before official report release, I've been banned from the thread for "sniping" on the crew... well beside the fact that there is no sniping while I legitimately ask about the motivation of this reward, I find this attitude very arrogant and not professional at all.

I wouldn't have any reason to be accused of sniping (which I am NOT doing) if proper facts would have been released aside this reward... It's obviously quite difficult to mention anything about this crew, even after 6 months, while it looks easy to reward it without proper info. I can imagine the officials at the ceremony "congratulation guys, here's your medal for what you know..."

Let's see how long my "disturbing" comment will last before I'm blasted out of Pprune...

[sispanys ria]

Mullah,

If you can read me it's because the ban concerns the main BA038 topic.
I'm really glad those gents got rewarded and not fired. But I would also be interested in learning from this quite unusual accident (and I'm not the only one). It's the first time I hear about rewarding a crew before the release of any official report. If it's sound pretty illogic to me, I insist, I don't have any problem with it since I'm sure BA had good reason to do so. Still, for the sake of transparency and aviation safety, it would be also appreciated if BA could release some instructive info as much easily it can release medals... what part of my curiosity is supposed to be insane ?

And please, elaborate on something else than me being jealous...:8

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

I'm sure the guys did a great job and deserve recognition but isn't the award to reassure the public about safety in BA?

I'm glad they got an award though. Far too often crews get hung out by the employers after an accident. BA are clearly supporting them here.

[sispanys ria]

Why don't you just leave it there, or are you trolling just to cause trouble for the sake of it?I'm not trolling (at least I'm far from your over 2000 messages contributions...), I'm just surprised and I only express my opinion. I think as BA had enough info to finally completely clear the crew, it would have been appropriate to release some factual info at the time of the reward since it might interest some other crews. Why do you only focus on some sort of offense toward BA in my post while I'm just curious ? Is it forbidden to ask for info ?

[pilotbear]

on your side there, because IMHO to exonerate the crew from blame which this award does implies a known technical failure.
Some people on here are so afraid for their jobs that they suffer from Ostrich syndrome and dare not ask questions in case their identity and obvious disloyalty to the brand is discovered:E

[coool guy]

Can someone enlighten me on normal investigation procedures?
Why has the Cockpit voice recorder transcription not been released?
In most accidents this is one of the first things that comes out. Take the concorde crash out of CDG, even though there was clearly nothing the crew could have done and certainly nothing they did wrong in this tragedy we were soon reading about the last moments of their flight. Very distressing for the friends and families of the crew undoubtedly, but they were not heroes or villains, just very unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Especially in light of this award the public has some right to evidence of the crews actions surely?

[Rainboe]

Nonsense. The public has no 'right' to the CVR. The crew survived and were able to testify, therefore there is no need for the CVR. The crew's rights to privacy in this case over-rides the public's right to hear conversations between pilots who survived and were able to give account of the events. CVR is purely an investigative tool intended to glean information when the pilots do not survive.

[nicolai]

Yes, I did mean BA 09---thanks for the answer and the link
You're welcome, it took quite some digging to confirm this. It would be nice if BALPA had a page on their website of past medals awarded and accompanying citations - it would be a good bit of publicity of the skill and importance of pilots.

[precept]

I offer my congratulations to the Captain and crew, flight deck and cabin included. Well done. Everyone aboard your aircraft lived and for that we give thanks.

Only time will tell what terrible circumstances placed you and your charges in harms way. The important thing is that, God willing, you were given the opportunity to walk away with each and every of your charges.

Congratulations and Well Done.

[Pontius]

IMHO to exonerate the crew from blame which this award does implies a known technical failure

No kidding, Einstein :rolleyes: We KNOW it's a technical failure. We KNOW the engines failed to respond to thrust lever movement. We KNOW the residual power was not sufficient to enable them to make the runway and, most importantly, we KNOW this was not 'pilot error' or caused by any misdeed by the flight crew.

What this reward does is recognise the actions of the crew once they were in that situation i.e the FACT that they didn't end up in a completely burning wreck with all on-board dead, rather a written off aircraft and everybody walking away from it.

I'm not convinced we will ever know the real cause of this as it has certainly got the AAIB and the manafacturers truly stumped. This, however, in no way prevents the actions of the crew being celebrated and rewarded. The official report will not change the actions of the crew, which we already KNOW to be beyond reproach when faced with the situation in which they found themselves.

[Flintstone]

Take the concorde crash out of CDG, even though there was clearly nothing the crew could have done and certainly nothing they did wrong

Nothing they did wrong? Apart from taking off over weight you mean? Sadly that contributed to their demise whereas so far nothing has been revealed to showthat the BA crew did anything that had a detrimental effect.

Let's not drag the thread off topic with such distractions.

[rmiller774]

I am trying to think of what possible harm could result from the awarding of these medals. If some crew failure should be revealed later on such as the crew not distributing fuel properly, the medals can be withdrawn. Meanwhile everybody is feeling good. This is one time that I am not in favor of waiting for the report.

[Captain Coue]

I do not know the exact quantity of fuel on board at the end of this trip and available on each tank on short final.
Somebody in this forum is able to write something clear about that?
If not, no use to write so much about this accident and before giving medals to the flight deck crew, it would be better to wait for this information
or, may be since the beginning, we are in front of propaganda? :ugh:

[cwatters]

Can I recommend you learn how to use a search engine. There are plenty of references to the qty of fuel remaining and comments by the AAIB on that as well.

[Captain Coue]

I didn’t ask you to recommend something.
I am asking a simple question: :confused:
What was the exact quantity of fuel remaining on board at the end of this trip and available on each tank on short final?

Are you able to give me an accurate answer?

Initial report, 18 January 2008
“A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire.”
This is not an accurate answer

Initial report update, 24 January 2008:
“Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft”
This is not an accurate answer

Special Bulletin, 18 February 2008:
- I read nothing about the exact fuel quantity remaining or may be I miss something

Special Bulletin, 12 May 2008:
- I read nothing about the exact fuel quantity remaining or may be I miss something

[llondel]

OK, I'll take pity on you and do a Google search. About 10.5 tonnes is the favourite answer, although what was in each tank isn't specified in any of what I looked at.

It really isn't hard to put "ba038 fuel remaining" into Google and skim through the results.:ugh:

Why do you need to know the exact quantity? The fact that there was adequate fuel is enough to discount lack of fuel in the tanks as an option.

[windytoo]

maybe he is looking for the ICAO English thread.

[Captain Coue]

These are only rumours.
There is no information about the accurate quantity of fuel in any official report and fuel on board may be located on a tank which is not directly supplying an engine.

[Another TD]

The BA Safety Medal.
Be under no illusion this a BA PR exercise that is in place only to produce great publicity. Any major incident involving crew who complete their SOP's correctly are always labelled ''Hero’s'' in the BA news. Many intelligent ground staff have started to comment on this reference and frankly we are seeing it as a bit of a joke. The B777 crew did a great job but I would argue that many many pilots would have achieved the same result; after all with no power there is only one direction to follow...towards the runway. An incident happened two years ago that illustrates my point. This involved a fuel pump replacement that went badly wrong with PAX onboard. The mechanics and LAE involved attempted to re-insert the pump after the housing mechanically failed with the subsequent gushing of fuel from the wing. The guys literally were standing under a shower of fuel (which temporarily burns the skin) and refused to leave this position until the housing was re-sealed. Why? Because of the 130 plus humans on board. They are heroes because they had an option to run but refused too. BA news did not run an article and they received no BA safety medal. I believe the reason for this is because the publicity would be perceived as bad therefore it would be better not to give it any profile, which in my opinion makes a mockery of the whole principle of the award. When we read of heroic cabin crew looking after a heart attack victim we admire them but we also feel a little bemused.

[Self Loading Freight]

The B777 crew did a great job but I would argue that many many pilots would have achieved the same result; after all with no power there is only one direction to follow...towards the runway.

Let's hope we never get to find out whether that's true or not (although I imagine that there've been a fair few simulator runs of that scenario since - anyone flown one?). Ordinary people - even pilots - in extraordinary situations who save the day are rightly praised, and they are no less heroic for being ordinary. And even at Heathrow, there's a lot of down without a runway at the bottom.

The guys literally were standing under a shower of fuel (which temporarily burns the skin) and refused to leave this position until the housing was re-sealed.

Yes, that's unfair. There is a lot of PR in public awards of all kinds - always has been since victorious soldiers were awarded a triumph in Rome, and doubtless long before that. PR is unfair. If BA had more cojones, it would count morale across the organisation as more valuable than news management -- and, in the end, more effective at managing the news.

[Starbear]

Wel said Captain Cue:

I asked this very question about midway through the numerous pages on the original thread and whilst not getting flamed, the mods saw fit to remove the post for what ever reason. Like you, I believe there has never been a definitive statement of the quantity aboard, only AAIB references to "indications of sufficient fuel" or similar words.

I just do not get why there so many on here who, even if they cannot answer someone's straightforward question feel obliged to give condescending instructions on search facilities etc. If you don't know, don't reply....at all....easy.

[cwatters]

>Initial report update, 24 January 2008:
>Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity
>was on board the aircraft”
>
>This is not an accurate answer

Agreed, but I feel it fully addresses your implied criticism of the award.

It's reasonably safe to assume BA is involved in the investigation and they have had sight of the info the AAIB used to make that statement.

It's not clear that the exact quantity will ever be known due to the damage. This thread is about the award. Discussion on the cause has it's own rather larger thread.

[coool guy]

Quote Pontius

'We KNOW this was not 'pilot error' or caused by any misdeed by the flight crew.'

We know nothing of the sort, the official investigation reports have ruled nothing in or out and have revealed very little of the crews actions.
I dont want to cast aspersions on the crew who were very unfortunate to be faced with a desperate situation which any normal humans would have found very difficult to cope with no matter how good the training or the individuals concerned.
I sincerely hope this crew will finally be exonerated and that will be the end of the matter.
But I am very critical of this political award which tries to preempt the final report by making heroes of people just for being there in their normal job capacity. It devalues any award system and lowers the industry to the level of the sensational journalist who typically reports, 'The crew nursed the bird stricken jumbo onto the runway, narrowly avoiding schools and built up areas' - embarassing to any professional.

[Jet II]

We KNOW it's a technical failure........



I'm not convinced we will ever know the real cause.......

I agree with your second point - which kinda makes your first point somewhat inaccurate?

[sarmonkey]

I've just read through this thread, and **** me, there are some bitter tw@ts out there, arent there?

Yes this medal has a PR side to it - in the worst era for air travel in a long time, any small reason to choose one company over another has to be capitalised upon. Messrs Branson, O'Leary and Stelios would have been all over this like a yeast infection if it had happened to their crews. Sadly, our glorious PR dept did their usual half-@rsed job and it was lucky if it made page 12 of the Pontefract Pig Breeders Gazette.

But whatever the reason, the crew did their job and made vital decisions which seem small in the cold light of day, but which stopped that 777 being part of Hounslow. Some pax didn't even know they'd crashed, for chrissake!! They could get any award in the world (always fancied the Order of Lenin myself), but I suspect the knowledge that they and their pax lived to tell the tale is all the thanks they care about.

Well done sirs and madams (ooer), I would tip my hat to you if I ever wore it.

And to all the 'they were just doing their job' and 'I wouldn't have done it like that' knobs: do try and be quiet, there's good chaps. They've done it, and done it well. You haven't, and hopefully will never have to.

[groundfloor]

Well said SARMONKEY!! Remember they represented all of us that sit in the pointy end.

That "Order of Lenin" come with cold beer? I`l take 2 :}

[Another TD]

**** me, there are some bitter tw@ts out there, arent there?

It was predictable that my thread would be interpreted as bitter. I can assure you that the crew are very much admired by all BA staff, we are very proud of their achievement. The purpose of my writing was to illustrate the inconstancy of the awards role.
Nobody is bitter and we are not tw@ts …please save your crudeness for your drinking mates and not a professional forum.

[Flintstone]

Whoooooah, there. Easy tiger ;)

My reading of sarmonkey's comments are that they were directed at the bitter element, not you for posting the story. If I'm wrong I'm sure sarmonkey will put me right.

[Captain Airclues]

Captain Coue

From page 2 of the report;

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/S1-2008%20G-YMMM.pdf

"The total fuel on board was indicating 10,500kg which was distributed almost equally between the left and right main fuel tanks with a minor imbalance of about 300kg."

Dave

[sarmonkey]

Flintstone

Quite correct, thanks.

***thread drift alert***

Another TD

Try and read and interpret posts properly - you'd see I agree with you. I didn't comment on your very justified annoyance at the lack of recognition in the incident you highlight because it isn't relevant here. Instead of pontificating about it anonymously on a 'professional' forum, why not do the 'professional' thing and push the case for an award with management?

3,2,1....and we're back on the thread.

[groundfloor]

Dear Flintstone,

The non issue/recognition for Honours, Awards and medals.

Pop this up on the military forum and you will see that you are not alone. Make no mistake the "higher ups" will be much more condusive when they can gain something. How many VC`s at Rorkes Drift after Insandlwana?

Make no mistake I am not taking anything away from any of these gentleman! Thats just the way it is, I have received gongs because I was in the right place at the right time - or was that the wrong time at the right place seen by the right people....:bored:.

If you feel strongly enough about it and you have all the details, put it in black and white and submit it.

[sispanys ria]

According to the very few AAIB information we know that the crew did let the AP fly the aircraft without enough power. As a result the speed decayed until AP disconnection while it tried to keep the plane on glide. this was followed by a high fpm sink till the ground. I don't see anything to be rewarded since there is no mention of any crew action in here...
Any basic ppl student learns that on engine failure during final the best way is to go below the glide in order to keep speed and store kinetic energy since it the only way to control an aircraft and to flare with a low speed/fpm impact.
In the BA case there is obviously a very innovative way of managing dead stick landings since the "strategy" was to "burn" all of the available kinetic energy. As a result, with no more kinetic energy to control the path, the aircraft was controlled by its potential energy which threw it to the ground and resulted in substantial damages.
Can anybody elaborate on the advantages on keeping the AP fly the glide on a dead stick approach (which is opposite to the fundamentals taught in any correct flight school) ?

I'd bet the guys realized lately they had a lack of power and that when they tried to apply manual power the speed was already so low that it resulted in AP disconnection. They are not to be blamed at all, but I still don't see any heroes. To be a hero you usually have to perform an heroic act. What I'm just asking here is what could have been the possible heroic acts that this crew could have performed ?

[Captain Coue]

Somebody is able to tell me about the Captain:
He is flying again? Or he is still grounded but with Ba safety medal?

[sispanys ria]

D+1 press conference:

YouTube - Pilot Of BA Boeing 777 Speaks Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpRFDtAYbz4)

I find quite inappropriate to make a "show" (with clapping public) out of a crew 24 H after a major crash, especially to find out that after over 7 months no information is available on how the crew detected and handled this failure (which would be even more important to know for obvious safety reasons that the causes are still undetermined...). Instead of safety oriented feedback, all we get is PR and medals. I'm quite sure any concerned 777 pilot would prefer technical cockpit info instead of public BA auto-congratulations.

[point8six]

Capt Coue -rest assured that if there was any hint of fuel mismanagement (i.e. low fuel state) by the crew, there would be no medals - just letters of dismissal.

[windytoo]

Perhaps the autopilot should be awarded the George medal.

[cjam]

Sispanis ria,
Personally I wouldn't be so quick to mock the flight crew for leaving the autopilot in. When it first became apparent to them that there was a problem, a major problem, it would have been a priority to determine what that problem was. Immediately disconnecting the auto pilot is not the way to start analysing. They were obviously aware of decaying airspeed, hence the action taken to manually increase thrust.
I'm not saying one way or another that their actions were spot on because like everyone here, I don't know. What I am saying is that a completely unexpected reduction in thrust on both engines at that stage of the approach would cause a degree of shock. A good crew will take a moment to assess what is happening when they recieve a shock and not launch instantaneously into a course of action. It sounds to me like they acted professionally in a very very difficult situation. They tried manually increasing thrust, when that wasn't working they reduced drag. What other options were open to them??? Very few I would suggest. It sounds like you would have disconnected and pointed the nose down to maintain airspeed....would you have cleared all the obstacles and touched down on the tarmac? Would you're brain have been so busy juggling airspeed maintenance with obstacle clearance that you neglected to reduce drag and landed shorter than them killing many? I don't know but as I said in my opening sentence, I wouldn't be so quick to mock the aircrew for not disconnecting.
Just a thought, Cheers.

[cjam]

Sispanys ria,
You stated;

"Any basic ppl student learns that on engine failure during final the best way is to go below the glide in order to keep speed and store kinetic energy since it the only way to control an aircraft and to flare with a low speed/fpm impact.
In the BA case there is obviously a very innovative way of managing dead stick landings since the "strategy" was to "burn" all of the available kinetic energy. As a result, with no more kinetic energy to control the path, the aircraft was controlled by its potential energy which threw it to the ground and resulted in substantial damages.
Can anybody elaborate on the advantages on keeping the AP fly the glide on a dead stick approach (which is opposite to the fundamentals taught in any correct flight school) ?"

Mate, for someone with an almighty "more than 3000TT" and 2500hrs Turbo prop PIC, don't you think it's a bit rich to start judging a BA 777 crew so harshly?
I am sure that they too can cast their minds back to how to fly an engine failure in a lightie and could discuss aerodynamics with you until the cows come home. Why not try and learn something rather than judge those more experienced than yourself? That way when you are in the left seat of a heavy you will be better prepared to handle situations as they arise.

[Good memories]

Hi Cjam,


In my humble opinion you are absolutely right. It is good to read polite and professional comments like yours who hit the nail on the head.

Good Flying!


John

[sispanys ria]

cjam,
thank you for your post and your research to dig out my background.
I'm not judging anybody, I'm just stating my astonishment towards this rewarding and I can promise you I'm not alone.
I don't need to be an astronaut to state that letting an AP fly an engineless aircraft on the glide is not an usual strategy. I bet the crew realized lately there was such an issue and that they didn't have so much choices when the AP disconnected.

I'm politely coming with questions regarding the actions the crew may have performed (for which they were rewarded) and I would expect a professional like you to help me through technical answers, but all I get are comments about my experience which according to you isn't enough to allow me to ask... As you recommended I'm asking to learn and I would appreciate if you could share your experience with my humble one by elaborating on why letting an AP flying a dead stick approach is a better strategy. I'm sure you did lot more of cruising hours than I did, so I respect you for that.

This is the ONLY thing I'm politely asking (and please understand that I'm not criticizing the crew). Please come straight to this point and save me from other personal comments.
Thanks and regards,

[rmiller774]

Where can I go to hear the conversations of the flight crew during this extremely tense period prior to the crash? Thank you.

[overstress]

rmiller: as far as I'm aware, you can't go anywhere to hear that, I don't think the AAIB play tapes to visitors.

syspanys ria: I find quite inappropriate to make a "show" (with clapping public) out of a crew 24 H after a major crash, especially to find out that after over 7 months no information is available on how the crew detected and handled this failure

It doesn't really matter what you think, BTW that wasn't the 'clapping public' it was 'clapping BA staff' at the company HQ. If an airline decides to award a medal to someone, they won't go through a consultation process on PPRuNe to find out what the wannabes and ill-informed think. (Not saying you're either of those)

All of us want to know what happened to BA038. We will just have to wait until the AAIB publish its findings.

I'm not sure where you are going with the dead-stick approach analogy but from the viewpoint of a 'heavy' pilot, maximum use of the automatics is the way to go. No-one trains for double engine loss of thrust at 600' for what should be, to you, obvious reasons.

I would suggest 'wait and see' is the appropriate strategy.

[617SquadronDB]

Agree 100% They were handed an impossible situation and performed admirable.

Well done, lads.

[Conan The Barber]

'Wait and see', very wise I would suggest.

Yet most people seem quite happy to suggest the crew did affect the outcome in a positive manner, while having no indication that it is so, apart from the fact that nobody died.

Is it to be assumed that speculation is ok when it is for the purpose of patting ourselves on the back?

[sispanys ria]

Thanks for all your comments.
What I meant regarding the press conference is that following such events crews should be handled with care following the intensive stress and I'm really surprised they were asked to make a speech in front of cameras and microphones.

Regarding the use of automatisms I would agree in a normal situation, but in that case, without power, no automatism can keep the glide for long. The known result is that the aircraft AP disconnected at 108 kts which led to a high fpm fall (very close to a stall). Should the AP have disconnected at a slightly lower IAS, the aircraft would probably have entered a full stall. At such a low speed there is no way to control any flare and reduce the fpm before impact... I doubt any pilot would deliberately let the AP try to keep the glide at 108 kts without power, this is why I feel the crew was probably confused by the situation and didn't have time to take any action (not even an emergency call)

I see many people making well done comments, may I ask what was well done ? I insist, I'm not blaming the crew for anything, I would just like to understand if they are just an unfortunate crew or if they really acted as heroes... I suppose those who congratulate them should have ways to elaborate on this.
Thank you very much.

[davidash]

Perhaps Boeing/BA needs to answer why one of their state of the art aircraft virtually dropped out of the sky. I am sure that we will find no fault whatever on the part of the crew. It is staggering that we have an unexplained near disaster and still, after all this time, do not have any answers.
Perhaps if the failure had happened a bit further away from touchdown ( heaven forbid!) something would have been done by now. I am glad I don't have any planned trips on the 777 in the forseeable future!

[Rainboe]

I see many people making well done comments, may I ask what was well done ? I insist, I'm not blaming the crew for anything, I would just like to understand if they are just an unfortunate crew or if they really acted as heroes... I suppose those who congratulate them should have ways to elaborate on this.
And extremely very well done too. Rather than have to justify that, you should try and justify your carping comments that are becoming very tiring. No one doubts you are so clever and know so much better than big jet pilots who have multiple thousand hours time more than you. But have you considered in a BIG jet like a 777 recognising slowly the situation that at 700' that your engines are not responding to thrust demands? And you think you know the answer is to put the nose down, in a giant aeroplane, at minimum speed, and hope you still have the control authority (and perfect judgement) to pull out of this daft dive you have put 150 people into? This is not a Cessna! And you are not the expert you think you are! They couldn't have made it any nearer the runway. So why don't you just leave it alone? We all know you think you know better. You know bugger-all about big aeroplanes and don't understand inertia of this size of aeroplane. Your experience is in bizjets as the largest you know right? You might get away with that in a little jet from 700', not in a 777! You would be still being scraped off the underrun of 27R if you'd tried your little trick!

[sispanys ria]

Rainboe please don't give me words which are not mines. On the contrary of what you pretend, I'm not judging since as you mentioned i don't have any experience on such heavy aircrafts. But as you are congratulating the crew, you must have some good reasons which I'm just asking you to explain to me. I know the subject is sensitive and I'm really trying to express myself without irritating anybody.

As you said, heavy machines have inertia, meaning it's more difficult to change their path. I never said they should have pushed the nose into a steep dive, but what is sure according to their IAS and VS, is that they had a very steep angle probably resulting from an important loss of lift. I'm not elaborating on what they should have done but I'm just wondering if they simply had time to understand the situation and react accordingly. I'd believe most common pilots' reactions would have been to disconnect the AP before reaching a very dangerous 108 kts, this is why I feel they were taken by surprise.
I understand the inertia thing, but i still feel like a 120 IAS would give more flare authority to control the final fpm than at 108...
As I told Rainboe in PM, I used to perform a lot of dead stick landing training during my previous military career (one hour every two months over 10 years), that's why I'm so interested in this technical energy management issue.

In plain language:

1- I would appreciate if those who congratulate the crew for their action could politely elaborate on what precise actions they are referring to since as a simple unexperienced corporate pilot I don't have the thousands of cruise hours to understand the specific handling of heavy machines.

2- I share my feeling that the crew may have been surprised by the situation since I feel a normal reaction would have been to take control of the aircraft before the AP pulls on the nose till a dangerous 108 kts.
If some people here are convinced they would definitely have let the AP on even at 108 kts, they are more than welcome to explain me the reason of such a decision since I may learn something very important for my future experience. You can eventually consider this as an off BA038 related question since it concerns general handling.

Thank you very much for keeping a fair a and polite dialog even if some people may feel I didn't reach the technical maturity to post in this topic.

[Rainboe]

as a simple unexperienced corporate pilot I don't have the thousands of cruise hours to understand the specific handling of heavy machines.

You don't need thousands of cruise hours, but you DO need experience of handling large and heavy jets, not fighters and business jets, to understand the ramifications of so much inertia. You seem hung up on this glide thing. They were at some 3 lengths of the aeroplane altitude with minimal sub idle power. You seem to be wanting them to push the nose down to sustain speed? In an aeroplane that size, pray how would they pull out with no pitch power coupling and below minimum speed? Your idea is, to put it mildly, utterly daft. Yes, do that in your HS125 or little fighter, (if you insist it is a good idea), but not in an aeroplane of that scale.

You seem to have a weird fascination with trying to prove they did not do right and you know better! They stretched out, in a few seconds, a final desperate glide, far far better than you could dream. But you insist on knowing how to do it better! You're daft. They had much less than a minute to try and control a unique and out of the blue situation, and didn't they do well!

You will also get an ignore if you carry on with this bitching of yours any longer.

It's not the crew's job or the airline's job to produce any sort of accident report. When the authorities have something to say, they will say it, not because anonymous Ppruners demand it!

[M.Mouse]

I have refrained from entering what is a pointless debate about the actions of the crew when we all have the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of unlimited time to make calculations and explore ideas. However, Rainboe you are talking a great deal of rubbish about inertia and pitch/power couplings in your understandable desire to scupper sispanysis ria's irritating postings.

With the luxury of several attempts and knowing the scenario I have seen it proven in the simulator that it would have been possible to have reached the threshold of the runway under control. It took some interesting actions and the visual picture looked awful. I doubt any of us would have been able to achieve that outcome unrehearsed and with no prior knowledge of what was about to occur.

As a BA pilot I am grateful that whatever they did the result was no loss of life, almost no injury and just some injured pride having lost a hull.

Second guessing the crew and criticising their actions from the comfort of our armchairs is as pointless as it is distasteful.

[sispanys ria]

As I can see you cannot behave as a gentleman I will no more discuss on this topic.

You insist on charging me with wrong intentions while I explained in plain language that i wasn't trying to judge or even comment the facts (which by the way are unknown to me). Instead of answering calmly and elaborating you became vulgar and didn't provide any technical comment to sustain your analyze. You said they manage to fly further than I could in my dreams. I'm fine with this but I would appreciate if you could elaborate on how in general you should handle such situations on heavy jets since this is what interests me. You say they handled the plane pretty well, but all I see with my unexperienced eyes is a plane that flew by itself until it initiated a stall. So be kind and teach me in what way they had no other choice. I was not blaming them and i was not saying what they should have done (what part of this message can't you get ?), I was basically asking why the conventional handling of a deadstick landing cannot work on big jets and I was expecting elaborated answers from experienced people like you.
All I got is irritated comments, charging me of god knows what and of course not bringing any new light on the facts that you consider beyond my competencies.

Well thank you for the warm welcome and your open mind. I always believed experience was something people should share but I obviously don't deserve your help on this.

Enjoy your retirement while I'll keep on learning my job from others.

[overstress]

sispanys ria

There are other things we could be occupying our time with. No-one trains for this on heavy jets as it is 'negative training' and is not mandated by the authorities.

If the same situation re-occurred then I doubt that any other twin jet pilot would immediately disconnect the a/p and bunt for the undershoot.

I could imagine that a single-engine jet pilot would view things differently, but it isn't relevant here as this was a very big twin.

[Rainboe]

However, Rainboe you are talking a great deal of rubbish about inertia and pitch/power couplings in your understandable desire to scupper sispanysis ria's irritating postings.

With the luxury of several attempts and knowing the scenario I have seen it proven in the simulator that it would have been possible to have reached the threshold of the runway under control. It took some interesting actions and the visual picture looked awful.

Well I'd love to hear more. What a terrific opportunity for a learning experience for big jet pilots. I have to say from 18 years 747 operating, losing effective power at 700', I would be loathe to put the nose down with barely enough height to pull up again, with simultaneous loss of the trim effect of power to cope with as well. So as what I have said is apparently incorrect (and what the only crew to be so affected actually did), would you be so kind as to expand on what you have seen and how it could possibly have been better handled? Would any pilot, with engines unexpectedly failed, at that altitude actually throw the nose down. I don't see how after the loss of energy from those engines from the time of failure sometime above 800', they could have got the aeroplane the extra distance to the threshold no matter how they played it, even at 108kts. I would be most interested in hearing how it should be done!

[M.Mouse]

I hesitate to continue this debate but I will make one last posting describing what was possible in the simulator after several attempts and considerable thought and discussion. Before I go on the B777 does not have the normal pitch/power couple so familiar to pilots of earlier Boeings due to its semi-automatic trimming system.

At the moment of power failure reduce flaps from F30 to F20 and at the same time lower the nose to accelerate and recover some of the lift lost from the flap reduction. Once into ground effect (approx. 200' on a B777) fly level and as the speed decays take further stages of flap until back to F30. The aircraft will reach the threshold of the runway. It worked in the simulator.

The visual picture looks awful and it would take a brave and skilled individual with perhaps superhuman speed of analysis to have pulled of such a feat bearing in mind the crew had no pre-warning and less than a minute to deal with the unthinkable. Which is why I have refrained from the debate up until now lest I am seen to be criticising the crew of the BA38, which I am most definitely not.

A very good explanation of ground effect and its benefits and disadvantages is shown here: Ground Effect explained (http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html) and will help understanding of why the above would work.

[cwatters]

So let me get this straight.... They reduced flap to improve glide.... they traded as much speed for height as possible and they were STILL low over the fence? It sounds to me like they had no option but to "hold it up".

Had they dropped it in further into the field with a high rate of descent then I guess you could argue that they held it up too long but that's not what happened. They held it up and only just made it.

Had they immediatly dived while the flap were still fully down I suspect they would just have lost height and not increased speed much? Comments?

[Rainboe]

Interesting. But what you are saying is basically that the energy loss of losing power on final approach from 700'+ would only account for an undershoot of a few hundred feet and a speed loss back to 108kts or so. I wish I could see it! Not something I would dare have done in a 747. Pre-warned and pre-armed maybe it could become a procedure, but totally unexpected and out of the blue, an unprecedented incident like this on a wide body, I have nothing but admiration for a magnificent achievement as it stands.

[dxzh]

I am really pleased that both pilots and cabin crew have already received a medal - through a combination of professional skill, good fortune and great CRM they pulled off a safe landing after being dealt a potentially catastophic hand of power loss at low height.

As an aside, another real-life example of the conundrum of energy management following a loss of power at low height (caused by very different factors but with happily safe results also), was the MD-83 at Bradley, CT in 1995. In that case the pilots decided to balloon the aircraft by setting 40 degrees of flap ... I believe the left engine had failed and the right engine was failing and in the later stage of the incident the plane apparently clipped a tree 76 feet above the ground (tree at 170 feet msl), some 1,100 feet from where it subsequently touched down on the ILS antenna and then rolled onto the runway (at 175 feet msl). The pilots in that case too were justifiably praised for getting the airplane down safely in that rather different set of circumstances.

[sispanys ria]

Would any pilot, with engines unexpectedly failed, at that altitude actually throw the nose down. I don't see how after the loss of energy from those engines from the time of failure sometime above 800', they could have got the aeroplane the extra distance to the threshold no matter how they played it, even at 108kts. I would be most interested in hearing how it should be done!Dear Rainboe, it is incorrect to continue exaggerating the pushing the nose down story. Nobody ever mentioned to push on the stick. So without pushing on the nose, you still have different options from pulling on the nose without power (which is what was done by the AP to keep on the glide). Without pushing on the stick, it is true that the nose would go down but I suppose the maintained speed would probably allow a controlled flare.

As I told you in my PM, on smaller aircrafts it is recommended to trade some potential energy (height) into kinetic energy (speed) until approaching the ground effect height. Once reaching the ground effect height, level flight should be maintained and flaps extended to full accordingly (flaps are extending gliding distance during a short period followed by highly deteriorated gliding performances). The speed reduction resulting from this level flight should allow a controlled flare until impact at a low speed and low fpm.

Once again, I'm not pretending this can be applied to heavy aircrafts, and anyway this wouldn't have been possible for this crew due to the extremely short time of reaction. Despite this, I'm quite surprised by the pull on the nose option and this is why I wanted experienced people to elaborate on it since I would never believe that pulling on the nose could be considered when loosing power.

[Rainboe]

dxzh, sounds a good idea. In a crash, not surprisingly, it is the kinetic energy that kills you. Anything you can do to reduce impact velocity increases your odds of survival. The conversion of kinetic energy to destructive force varies with the speed squared, so it is all important to contact the ground with minimal speed. Full Flap and just above stall speed seems a good idea, and the gear down getting knocked off helps dissipate the kinetic energy.....which in this case is what they did to a 'T'. Shame he's still carping on about it, whatever he is saying!

[lomapaseo]

Anything you can do to reduce impact velocity increases your odds of survival. The conversion of kinetic energy to destructive force varies with the speed squared, so it is all important to contact the ground with minimal speed.

Well decelleration forces have a great deal to do with this.

So in a what-if mode

Spread the slow down in speed out over a longer time and you have a much greater chance.

So strewing parts of the plane along the horriz path aint a bad idea, but the major issue in these cases is the weakest link that breaches the cabin assuming the fuel tanks are breached.

If you can drop it vertically (stall) and stay within the drop test g loads demonstrated during design, I'll take that.

If not then spread out the horrz G's along a straight line ala the Kallita B747 and AF Dover C5. But don't skid it sideways.

I'm guessing that the pilot senses too much unknowns about the vertical drop rate and impact G's and chooses instead to spread out the G's in the direction of flight that he has more control over.

So what do most of you do in simulators in this altitude regime when you lose it? and don't tell me you don't lose it because we all like to feel what it's like in a simulator don't we?:}

[Rainboe]

Low altitude stalls are too unpredictable to risk voluntarily contacting the ground in a stall regime. We've had losses of a 1-11 and Trident in vertical fall horizontal attitude stalls, with no survivors. The idea is to keep flying just above stall- 108kts sounds about right! You need to keep attitude control to the end. It's all very well coming out with criticism of better ways, but this was a unique event, and I would have written off throwing the nose down with at the back of my mind these thoughts:
'With flap running in and out, will I still have hydraulic pressure to power the elevators with the load I will need to pull out of this self inflicted dive, and can I risk running flap at 200' with a very large elevator demand still to come?' They had precisely 0 seconds to make that choice. On a 747, I'd have said 'no way Jose!' The whole plane load is walking around today. That is why they deserve respec', big time, and that is why these pathetic gits who carp on about them even now should have the ignore button pressed on them!

[Conan The Barber]

It is rather bizarre to equate a desire to learn and improve with critisism.

To analyze a situation and see if it could have been handled differently, possibly resulting in a more favourbale outcome, is a natural and healthy thing to do. How this can be seen as critisism is beyond me.

I still don't know what effect the crew's actions had on the outcome, if any. So I won't offer any comment in that regard.

[Rainboe]

To analyze a situation and see if it could have been handled differently, possibly resulting in a more favourbale outcome, is a natural and healthy thing to do. How this can be seen as critisism is beyond me.
Exactly, post 121 above, is an example. But there is a negative aspect. To observe it, hit Search and input Sispanys Ria for someone who knows how to do it better and has no qualms about saying it.

[lomapaseo]

Low altitude stalls are too unpredictable to risk voluntarily contacting the ground in a stall regime. We've had losses of a 1-11 and Trident in vertical fall horizontal attitude stalls, with no survivors. The idea is to keep flying just above stall- 108kts sounds about right! You need to keep attitude control to the end.

I agree with this and just wanted to take it a bit farther with the zero seconds intuition of horriz flight as the primary concern, avoiding stall as the secondary concern and then if you still have a flying machine (you're still in control) some second order considerations like a lot of us are second guessing

Of course I and just about everybody else on this board offers no crticism, but we are willing to learn :)

I vote for intuition first (that must have been correct) and after that it's worth a "wow"

[sispanys ria]

Rainboe, I will not comment on your aggressive attitude towards me beside I'm sincerely posting without any bad intention.

The idea is to keep flying just above stall- 108kts sounds about right! You need to keep attitude control to the end.Flying just above the stall speed with high fpm is definitely not the best way to increase the gliding distance. Without anymore referring to the particular BA038 flight (I don't have enough experience and material to elaborate) I would still appreciate to discuss the following 3 options that have been mentioned assuming a plane looses power in similar conditions and that the crew is immediately aware of it and able to react:

1- You try to remain on the glide, meaning you have to pull on the stick which results in decaying speed and ends in a pre-stall high fpm steep descent till impact.

2- You don't pull or push on the stick and the plane will lower its nose as it will try to keep its IAS. Once you reach a reasonable flare height then pull on the stick to keep the plane level, drop the flaps and finalize the flare to arrange low IAS/low fpm impact

3- You push on the nose to accelerate the plane and then deal with a dangerous flare due to inertia, while you probably spoiled a lot of energy while changing your pitch.

I understand Rainboe would definitely go for option 1 while I would have bet for option 2 :8.

I would appreciate if you could elaborate on this choice and especially highlighting why option 2 wouldn't be applicable. Thank you

[overstress]

None of the above is relevant as the autopilot remained engaged, attempting to maintain the glide. Besides, as we all know, in the stall, 'pulling' on the stick makes you go down faster.

The initial aiming point was the TDZ, as the a/c was maintaining the glide. There will always be tarmac before that, had the engines done their thing 20s later they would have crunched on the solid stuff, what would that have done at 2000fpm?

[misd-agin]

sispanys ria,

You're on the right track. Slowing below L/D does not increase your gliding distance. L/D is L/D. L/D does not get better right approaching stickshaker.

While larger jets do have more inertia they are not locomotives or large ships that are relatively unmanueverable.

[snowfalcon2]

thanks for this thread's most informative and least emotional contribution.

While fully respecting the crew for their actions in a situation they had apparently never been trained for or been prepared to expect, I have one question: Assuming no change in flaps settings, just an immediate a/p disconnect and maintaining the original approach speed as the first priority, what would the simulated outcome have been? Am I correct in guessing the plane might have made the grass in a decent flare?

[M.Mouse]

I am afraid I have not tried that and could only guess so the answer is I don't know. Sorry.

[windytoo]

I have tried it but it is incredibly difficult to produce any consistent flare away from the "runway environment" due to the lack of definition in the simulator. For real, god forbid, I am sure you could achieve a better touchdown by manually flying it but only if you could reach the same impact point that they did. Any shorter and it would undoubtedly end in a worse result.

[misd-agin]

777 pilot - "you can make the runway, you just have to be quick about it. And we knew it would happen, they (BA 038 crew) didn't."

He did not mention if they changed configuration or not.

He said they were able to flare to land and barely made the runway. Made it, but barely, with a normal touchdown.

These are issues(speed control, use of A/P, configuration changes, systems operations during events like this) that the AAIB is probably investigating.

[el #]

What about an additional A/P logic that attempts to fly the longest distance in case of thrust failures like BA038.

The idea would be to take the most reasonable reaction in automatic before the pilot takes control, he/she could also elect not to, knowing what the airplane will try to do.

I understand there can be 1000 very good reasons against the above and I'm just trying to think out of the box here.

[Patuta]

Heathrow Hero Pilot Denied Job Interview (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Hero-Pilot-Peter-Burkill-Who-Carsh-Landed-Jet-At-Heathrow-Denied-Job-Interview-Due-To-Incident/Article/200909415386734?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15386734_Hero_Pilot_Peter_Burkill_Who_Carsh-Landed_Jet_At_Heathrow_Denied_Job_Interview_Due_To_Incident)

[Nopax,thanx]

Ahh, KAL....the world's safest airline :rolleyes:

[blackred1443]

what a joke,kal turning someone down on safety concerns.how quickly they forget the DL report

[Juan Tugoh]

Firstly, I have the greatest of respect for all the crew of the BA38 and especially wish the Captain all the very best in his future career - this is in no way to be interpreted as in any way as a slur on him.

what a joke,kal turning someone down on safety concerns.how quickly they forget the DL report

Your comments have no logic - the logical conclusion of what you have just said is that a safety conscious company, with history of flight safety issues should employ people with crashes/incidents in their flying history.

It seems an eminently sensible corporate policy to exclude such people, and the CV stage would be the place to do this. Corporate policy is not there to say things like "No pilots with an incident/accident or accident in their history shall be employed, except for those whom other pilots think are good eggs." The lawyers would laugh themselves all the way to the bank.

[Max Angle]

except for those whom other pilots think are good eggs

Or except those who were not to blame for the incident and whose prompt actions at the time almost certainly prevented a huge loss of life.

[Bealzebub]

It seems an eminently sensible corporate policy to exclude such people, and the CV stage would be the place to do this. Corporate policy is not there to say things like "No pilots with an incident/accident or accident in their history shall be employed, except for those whom other pilots think are good eggs." The lawyers would laugh themselves all the way to the bank.

Does it? Would they?

So Captain Sullenberger and First Officer Skiles, who would also presumably be precluded on the same basis, should also be prejudiced in this manner for being involved in a ancident where they were not at fault and their actions resulted in massive savings for their employers and in turn for their insurance underwriters. These insurers would likely underwrite airframes for many airlines all around the world, and should be down on bended knees applauding the actions and results of these individuals skills and performance.

Accidents and incidents do not mean that the victims are the perpetrators or the cause or the fault. Only the timid and blinkered would be so myopic. A myopia and paranoia no doubt enhanced by sad and sorry images of airframes that came to grief on runways and hillsides where their own training and corporate culture was woefully lacking.

[Cirrus_Clouds]

This BA pilot can do much better than the likes of Korean Airlines, with requirements they must obey, it sounds like part of the T's and C's from the insurance company they use.

Having met Capt. Sullenberger a few months ago, who received the highest medal of honour from Prince Philip, these pilots who save lots of lives and show extra professionalism, deserve more than praise itself. ... things that some individuals just don't obviously understand.

I'm sure he'll move onto something better :ok:

[Juan Tugoh]

Policies of this nature are not written with the specific in mind. They are there to cover the general and as such may well sweep up and adversly affect such luminaries as Captains Burkhill and Sullenberger.

They still protect the company from having to make judgements on often politically driven accident investiagtions. How many findings of an accident are contentious with one company or manufacturer or pilot or families of pilots contested in some fashion.

I would be honoured to sit next to either of the pilots mentioned above, but that is going into the specific and not the general.

[manrow]

You make a good point Juan Tugoh.

The problem is that although some aviation authorities encourage the whistle-blowing philosophy where incidents are openly reported for the benefit of aviation safety worldwide, this is not acknowledged by the accountants who run companies these days.

[thinkingpilot]

At the risk of a little thread drift WHEN and if is the aaib report coming out???. British airline on british soil with british engines !!! Dont tell me i'm the only one who sees cover up?? Posted here cos the BA 038 thread is now a spool:}

[M.Mouse]

Dont tell me i'm the only one who sees cover up??

The AAIB don't do over ups. They do painstaking, thorough, non-judgemental and accurate accident analysis and reports.

Do you think they should publish before they are finished to satisfy your impatience?

[HarryMann]

Non-thinkingpilot

Wake up and cut the crap - obviously you know nada about the AAIB - abs.nada :ugh:

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

thinkingpilot - whatever you are thinking of it is almost certainly the wrong thing. Your comments about the AAIB and a suggested cover-up involving a 'British airline on british soil with british engines' are woefully ignorant of the UK accident investigation process. You may indeed smell a cover up - this is not India and that is not how things work in aviation here. The AAIB can publish anything they want and are not subject to interference from the UK government, any airline or any manifacturer. I appreciate you do not know how our accident investigation works, but it may be best to remain silent before revealing your ignorance to the world.

Regarding KAL, they have one of the worst safety records of any airline in modern times. It is entirely in keeping with that record to ban people who have been involved in an accident rather than people who were blameworthy in an accident. Yet another poor decision from an airline who have consistently done for flight safety what lockjaw does for conversation.

[Oxidant]

I hope you meant "blameless". Norm?!:)

[cessnapuppy]

I hope you meant "blameless". Norm?!
I think he makes perfect sense the way he had it.

Regarding KAL, they have one of the worst safety records of any airline in modern times. It is entirely in keeping with that record to ban people who have been involved in an accident rather than people who were blameworthy in an accident.


To ban people who have been "involved" as opposed to being "blameworthy" strikes of an action taken that is not considerate of "Cause and Effect" or the difference between proximity and culpability.
That kind of thinking (or lack of) would surely contribute to a poor safety record, or a worsening one

[Wannabe Flyer]

AS a SLF it is apparent from all the information available that the cause of the "incident" was a technical fault and no way "pilot error"....

That said all pilots Captains Burkhill and Sullenberger included (plus the many other un recognized ones) have not only learned with how to deal with such emergencies, but have also taught the aviation world on how to.

God forbid if any such incident were to ever occur in an aircraft I am in I would be overjoyed to have Captains Burkhill and Sullenberger in control as their reaction time would be even better this time around and odds stacked in my favor. :D

Sad i don't run an airline as I would be lining up to hire these guys! :sad:

[olster]

The AAIB are not immune from political influence in their investigations.To believe otherwise is naive.My dealings with KAL have been frustrating and not aligned with evolved thinking if I may be diplomatic.

[Mick Stability]

Unfortunately, this is being spun by some of the gainsayers at Cranebank that Capt Burkill was dismised by BA for incompetence, and that Korean won't employ him because of it.

History will finally show what an incredible job Peter and his crew did on the day, and how his leadership and CRM led to a 777 with no power crashing at the busiest international airport in the world and had all his customers walk away with barely a scratch.

For some constituencies at BA, this is too much to bear. Pilot hating is deeply entrenched, and hence the whispering campaign against Peter. The report will not come out until it contains enough euphamisms to keep everyone smelling of roses.

Unacceptable? Welcome to the new culture that pervades the UK.

[Totally_Bananas]

"Welcome to the new culture that pervades the UK."

This doesn't exist over in easyJet imho. Perhaps it's unique to BA.

[Mmmayday38]

Quote from Mick Stability:
"Unfortunately, this is being spun by some of the gainsayers at Cranebank that Capt Burkill was dismised by BA for incompetence"

Thanks for letting me know this one!!
I never thought I'd read or hear people thinking that! I would rather know the negative stuff being spouted than stumble across it at a later date.

I'm seething over the fact that anyone in BA would think this; maybe it goes to show that some people speculate wrongly because they cannot understand why I decided to leave the LHS of a big airline.

Yes the truth will come out, but these sort of words hurt and stay hurt because I will always know that not everyone gets to hear the truth and even if they do hear it they choose not to understand and stand by the rumours they heard months/years before because those are more entrenched in their minds, so must be true!

I am trying to stay loyal to BA, they gave me a good career and I am not in a position in which I want to slag them off. I don't want to get into a slanging match of who/whats and whys but it is these sort of hurtful comments that contribute to the decision making process when a person questions where they should spend the next 15yrs of their career.

When 'The Sun' found out that I was leaving BA, both BA and I confirmed I was taking VR. Why would they say this if they had dismissed me?

[TopBunk]

Pete

We spoke a few months back outside T5, and as a fellow 78er can I just re-iterate that you know that those who really matter hold you in the highest regard, and that the morons elsewhere in BA are just bitter and twisted and a waste of space and beneath contempt.

Please try to hold your head high - you have earned the right to sneer at them.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

Peter,

Why don't you write a book or go on the lecture circuit for a short spell. Hasn't Moody been coining it in for decades over the Volcanic ash incident? You could replace him as sky's aviation expert whenever there is an accident. How hard can it be?

All you need is a jacket and tie and a list of stock phrases including long complicated acronyms and finish by saying " we shall have to wait until the black box is found before we really know"

Seriously though, I wish you all the best. Whenever your event is discussed in flightdecks i've been on, I've heard nothing but the highest regard for you by your fellow pilots.

Good Luck.

[Currock Base]

Captain,
BA is a big organisation, statistically there will always be a few uninformed morons. However please note there are lots of your ex colleagues in many departments including me, who have the highest regard for you and your actions.

I salute you. Good luck for the future!

Currock Base

[chris weston]

Complete expletive contempt for the naysayers here.

Let them be tested at the end of a long stint in the saddle and see how they perform in less than 60 seconds in that situation.

Do they seriously think that they make themselves one iota more important by attempting to knock real people who did real things and really did save (hundreds of?) lives that day.

Very best wishes sir, total respect.

CW

[thinkingpilot]

M MOUSE , it has been 18 months plus . the lockerbie report by the aaib took about the same amount of time and THAT was terrorism.
harryman, try to remember that this is a proffessional forum and justify
your comments rather than behaving like a 5 year old.
norman stan fletcher , as above my compliments on trying to come to the defense of your country's board but try to talk as a proffessional rather than bringing india into your irrellevant comments . Concentrate on the issue rather than revealing your bias.Try to explain how in a little while this investigation will overtake lockerbie in time taken . Also if you think any institution is TOTALLY above pressure I hope you dont hold any position of responsibility.:ugh:
btw for proffessional pilots unlike the jingoistic guys above please note that the aaib is looked upto by many all over the world which is what makes the time taken on this report all the more troubling when ALL the evidence was right there on day 1.

[wiggy]

I think you'll find that in the majority of accidents the "evidence is there from day one"...it's finding it and understanding it that takes the time...As someone who flys RR engined 777's I don't care if it takes the AAIB another 6 months to publish the full report as long as they get it "right".

[M.Mouse]

...the lockerbie report by the aaib took about the same amount of time and THAT was terrorism.

And easily understood. The BA38 accident is complex and they do not rush to pander to the modern insatiable desire to appease the impatient.

[NoJoke]

Will Pilots get paid the same as Surgeons now? We seem to save more lives ....

[Bealzebub]

No,

But we share the similarity, that the knives will be out for us!

[Carnage Matey!]

which is what makes the time taken on this report all the more troubling when ALL the evidence was right there on day 1.

Indeed, and by day 1 plus about 30 minutes the most important piece of evidence in the investigation had melted leaving no trace of it's presence. And you wonder why the investigation has taken so long?

[Sir Donald]

Pilots unfortunately can't create what the medical profession has created in order to safeguard itself.
A strong representation determines the number of ''crew'' required, always less of course which creates a shortage of skill, naturally by undertraining, which then chokes the system with waiting lists, then introduce a simple ''solution'' such as health insurance, and we have a system which benefits the chosen few.
Hence why surgeons remuneration in the west have outpaced inflation tenfold. Does this benefit the tax funded user?No.Has this helped reduce the mortality rates in the west?No to the contrary.

Solution, the Japanese system, a system that was created to benefit the end user only.

So long as we have the ''flexicrew'' system and its inceptors around our profession is doomed. Efficient market theory.

[wjsherriff]

Yes, and many times over!

Brick Bats, (pls provide proper english term), to the Industry!

For not providing a safe altitude throughout the designated approach, to permit a reduced power gliding profile, to reach the desired runway, and pilot training in the control of kinetic energy in ground effect, during the landing phase.

[chippy63]

How about the crew that had the flameout in volcanic ash over Indonesia?
Added- yes, just seen above, Capt Moody & Co: no medal?

[His dudeness]

From Wikipedia:

"The crew received various awards, including Her Majesty The Queen's Commendations for Valuable Service in the Air and medals from the British Air Line Pilots Association."

[coool guy]

Mmmday 38, the man himself, very interesting to read what you had to say! I sincerely hope the final report vindicates you and your crew's actions. However I disagree with the medal awards and the BA propaganda press conference! We as pilots are there to do a job and shouldnt be treated as either heroes or villains when something goes wrong, the report should simply determine what happened and try and stop it happening again.
But from a PR point of view I think you have behaved naively to say the least. Of course resigning from the worlds favorite airline is bound to make it look like you were pushed, you shouldnt be surprised at that. You gave the reason as 'needing more time with your family' and then try and get a job with KAL in Korea?
But worst of all you claimed job seekers allowance when you no doubt received a very handsome payout from BA (not to mention the 6 figure pension you would have got had you stayed on). Knowing that everything you did would be closely scrutinised by the tabloids I dont think you can now complain about hurtful comments!

[juniour jetset]

All the best for the future Pete.


Of interest to this thread..

Saw this on youtube- a coherent overview of the AAIB investigation.
YouTube - British Airways 777 Crash Update March 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJkhxpE4kLc&feature=related)

[Vino Collapso]

I can't be bothered to drag through nine pages of postings on this so forgive me if I duplicate.

This crew ended up with a scenario not seen before in modern times with little time to assess the situation and resolve it. It ended up as a happy story partly through flying ability aided by more than a shovel full of luck.

A major event such as this is bound to concentrate the mind on life, the universe and everything so a change in career direction is to be expected.

Meanwhile the BA publicity machine is going to work flat out of making a near disaster into a PR bonus, and try to take the crew along with them. If the crew do not want to be made some sort of hero, which they probably do not, then they will be in opposition to company protocol. What would you do? Go along with the PR machine? Fall on your sword and be labelled a martyr? Just get the hell out of it and start again?

I think I would distance myself from the politics and get on with life.

[M.Mouse]

cool guy, one comment which cannot be left unchallenged is your reference to a 6 figure pension. In the not so distant past pensions of that order were possible but nowadays very few will get anywhere near that figure. Knowing Peter's background I know he would not have done.

His decision to leave was made for reasons he alone truly knows.

[Basil]

. . and now, some light relief: What did you think it was going to be?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Capn_Basil/image001.jpg

Don't have an accreditation for cartoonist. If he/she sees this here I will accredit or remove as requested.

[Mmmayday38]

Coool Guy

I have spent too many months not being able to defend myself but I am going to try and defend myself to your post.

"Of course resigning from the worlds favorite airline is bound to make it look like you were pushed, you shouldnt be surprised at that. You gave the reason as 'needing more time with your family' and then try and get a job with KAL in Korea?
But worst of all you claimed job seekers allowance when you no doubt received a very handsome payout from BA (not to mention the 6 figure pension you would have got had you stayed on). Knowing that everything you did would be closely scrutinised by the tabloids I dont think you can now complain about hurtful comments"



The decision to leave BA was not one I took lightly. It was not based on one individual reason but rather a build up of varying issues from within and outside the company. No-one will ever fully be able to understand what the last 19 months have been like except for my wife and I. Even close friends cannot fully comprehend the impact the BA38 has had on us. If you had walked in my shoes over the last 19 months, and I hope you never do have to, you would understand that the choice to take the VR from BA was the right decision for my family and I. AND yes I am surprised to hear of rumours that suggest I was pushed out. That is disappointing as all the evidence shows that the BA38 was not pilot error, so why should I even think I would be portrayed as being pushed? To have people imply that I was pushed when it is common knowledge that I took VOLUNTARY redundancy is hurtful and there is no justification or fairness to it.

KAL was an option I looked into back in May which I had hoped to be able to use as an interim, as I was under the impression I had a job to go to with a certain airline once they started recruiting again. It was never going to be longterm and once I discovered that they do not accept an accident I knew I wouldn't be accepted by them anyway. You should never believe everything you read in the papers.

Yes I received 52 weeks basic pay for my VR. A nice figure and enough to last me a year. A 6 figure pension ... I wish! Those days went a long time ago!

Jobseekers allowance. From my 52 weeks VR payout I will pay approx £40k in tax (forget what I will have paid already this year). I have worked since I was 13 in small part time jobs, through Uni and then into BA for the last 20years. I have never claimed anything but probably just like you I have paid a lot into the pot. We get no help with childcare costs or housing costs. My son has a medical condition that in the future he will probably need an operation on his leg as they grow at different rates. Until he is close to maturity the Docs will not know how much length difference there will be between his legs. If there is a length difference in his legs of less than 4cm they will not operate unless I pay privately. So even in this instance I possibly would not be able to make use of medical facilities that my taxes would have helped with, yet if I don't pay privately my son would have one leg 4cm shorter than the other, with an operation possible but not availabe on the NHS.

By taking jobseekers allowance I will have my national pension contributions paid and NI paid for the next 6 months. Surely this is fair? Or am I supposed to lose out on these contributions? If you think that it is wrong for me to take £1664 (£64 week x 26 weeks, if I remain unemployed for 6 months) from the state after what I have paid in? does that mean that those people who haven't worked a day in their lives and don't expect to ever work should take any? We all know people who have no intention of working yet manage to claim all kinds of benefits.



His Dudeness

From Wikipedia:

"The crew received various awards, including Her Majesty The Queen's Commendations for Valuable Service in the Air and medals from the British Air Line Pilots Association."


I'd just like to point out for those who may confuse it with the title of this thread that this statement is for the BA009 and not the BA38. The BA38 were invited to a Queen's Garden Party last year.

[paulg]

Mmmayday38

I have just read all of Coool guy's posts on Pprune (all 5 of them). 4 are on this thread. Just a cautionary note to be careful in case trolls are operating. The media has been known to lurk.

All the best to you and your family. You deserve respect and goodwill from all.:)

Best wishes
Paul.

[ricky81 sti]

Mmmayday38

The upmost respect to you pal, if faced with a difficult situation one day i only hope i can react as well under immense pressure.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

As a Training Captain, we get to fly with all sorts of people. Just had a flight with an AAIB Inspector in the other seat. Among numerous other discussions that day, a fascinating chat ensued about BA038 and who was to blame etc. The AAIB pilot was absolutely clear that no blame whatsoever could or should be attached to the pilots. Their view is that by an astonishing stroke of good fortune the engines did not pack up a few minutes earlier with potentially catastrophic consequences for all on board, plus numerous innocent people on the ground. The pilots were considered to have been faced with an impossible situation which, despite a very long flight and little or no notice, they handled very well. This was a combination of unusual in-flight conditions and a little-understood engineering issue. The AAIB pilot said that they believed these conditions have probably appeared on several previous occasions, but environmental circumstances prevented the engines losing power to the extent experienced here. They also recognised that, having reached this unenviable position, 19 times out of 20 it would normally result in disaster. I personally am delighted that a degree of good fortune and a massive amount of airmanship prevented disaster that day. Our industry's hardest and most unforgiving professionals, the AAIB, agree - that is good enough for me.

And for what its worth - I am one who is exposed to significant numbers of people who revel in fleecing the social security system. I am therefore delighted that Mmmayday38 is able to recoup a tiny portion of his significant payments into the pot - it makes a very pleasant change to the pile of complete losers and thieves who are bleeding the country dry.

[Obie]

Yeah!!...38 and the entire crew can hold their heads up high for the rest of their lives. I hope they realise that that is the opinion of all the true professionals on this website! :ok::ok:

[stillgettingitup]

Well done guys...great job was done by all!!!!

[juniour jetset]

It's amazing to see the vast difference between different societies responses to incidents that are not that dissimilar. Below is an account (from Wikkipedia) of the US airways ditching in the Hudson and the aftermarth for Captain Sullenberger and how the USA celebrated this fine airmen on multiple fronts. In contrast, how different Captain Burkill and his First officiers (The UK's just as fine airmen) have been treated, yet they got their passengers and felow crew down safely as well.

Maybe this is a society thing and maybe there is an atribution bias involved, as the media images of the BA777, crashed and badly dented look quite different to that of an intact A320 floating calmly on the river with people on the wings. Yet, both aircraft experienced very similar problems - double engine outs. But, the BA crew experienced it at a lot lower altitude and had a lot less time to react. Under those circumstances they did just as good job as the US crew, yet the recognition is vastly different? Just some food for thought


On January 15, 2009, Sullenberger was pilot in command (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command) of an Airbus A320 (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Airbus_A320) from New York's LaGuardia Airport (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/LaGuardia_Airport) to Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Charlotte/Douglas_International_Airport) in Charlotte, North Carolina (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Charlotte,_North_Carolina). The flight was designated as US Airways Flight 1549 (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549) as well as United Airlines Flight 1919.[24] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-23) Shortly after taking off, Sullenberger reported to air traffic control (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Air_traffic_control) (ATC) that the plane had hit a large flock of birds, disabling both engines.[25] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-NYDailyNews_Burke_20090116-24) Several passengers saw the left engine on fire.[26] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-YahooNews_Caruso_20090116-25) Sullenberger discussed with ATC the possibilities of either returning to LaGuardia or attempting to land at Teterboro Airport (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Teterboro_Airport) in New Jersey. However, he quickly decided neither was feasible, and determined to ditch in the Hudson River (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Hudson_River).[27] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-iht_dramatic-26) Sullenberger told the passengers to "brace for impact", then piloted the plane to a smooth ditching (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Ditching) in the river at about 3:31 P.M.[28] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-MSNBC-27) All passengers and crew members survived.[28] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-MSNBC-27) He later said, "It was very quiet as we worked, my co-pilot and I. We were a team. But to have zero thrust coming out of those engines was shocking—the silence."[29] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-28) Sullenberger checked the passenger cabin twice to make sure everyone had evacuated, before retrieving the plane's maintenance logbook and being the last to evacuate the aircraft.[8] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Rivera-7)[30] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-29)

Sullenberger, described by friends as "shy and reticent",[31] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-MacAskill_Guardian_20090126-30) has been noted for his poise and calm demeanor during the crisis. New York City Mayor (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/New_York_City_Mayor) Michael Bloomberg (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg), for example, dubbed him, "Captain Cool".[32] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Goldenberg_NYPost_20090210-31) However, Sullenberger acknowledged that he had suffered some symptoms of posttraumatic stress (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress) for the first couple of weeks following the crash, including sleeplessness and flashbacks, though this condition had improved by the time of his late February 2009 interview with People (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/People_(magazine)) magazine.[33] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-People-32) In a CBS (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/CBS) 60 Minutes (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/60_Minutes) interview, he was quoted as saying that the moments before the crash were "the worst sickening, pit-of-your-stomach, falling-through-the-floor feeling" that he had ever experienced.[34] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-SyndneyMorningHerald_20090206-33) Speaking with news anchor Katie Couric (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Katie_Couric), Sullenberger said, "One way of looking at this might be that for 42 years, I've been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience: education and training. And on January 15 the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal."[35] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Newcott_AARP2009-34)
U.S. President (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) George W. Bush (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) called Sullenberger to thank him for saving the lives of the passengers,[36] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-GWB-35) as did President-elect (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/President-elect_of_the_United_States) Barack Obama (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)[37] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-36) who also invited him to join the presidential inauguration ceremony (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_2009_presidential_inauguration).[38] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Guardian_20090119-37) On January 16, 2009, the United States Senate (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) passed a Congressional resolution to recognize and honor Sullenberger, co-pilot Jeff Skiles, the crew, passengers and first responders (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/First_responders) to Flight 1549's emergency landing.[39] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-38) The United States House of Representatives (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) passed a similar resolution on January 26, 2009.[40] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-39)

Sullenberger attended the inauguration of Barack Obama, where he and his wife met President Obama.[33] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-People-32) On January 22, 2009, Sullenberger, along with the rest of the crew of Flight 1549, was awarded a Masters Medal by the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Guild_of_Air_Pilots_and_Air_Navigators).[41] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Masters-40) A ceremony for Sullenberger was held on January 24, 2009, in his hometown of Danville, California (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Danville,_California), where he was presented with awards including Danville's "Key to the Town",[31] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-MacAskill_Guardian_20090126-30) and was named an honorary Danville police officer (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Police_officer).[42] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-41) San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/San_Ramon_Valley_Fire_Protection_District) Chief Richard Price presented the Captain with the district's highest award, the Medal of Valor,[43] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-42) which has been given only a few times in the district's history.[44] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-43) Sullenberger, Skiles, and Flight 1549's cabin crew, Doreen Walsh, Sheila Dail and Donna Dent, were honored with a standing ovation during the Super Bowl XLIII (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIII) pre-game on February 1, 2009.[45] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-44) Sullenberger has also been awarded with honorary lifetime membership in The Seaplane (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Seaplane) Pilot's Association.[46] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-45)[47] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-46) Admirers of Sullenberger started a Facebook (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Facebook) fan site that, as of late February 2009, had half a million members.[33] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-People-32)

A few weeks after the crash, it was revealed that Sullenberger had lost a library book about professional ethics, Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability, in the plane's cargo hold. When he called the library to notify them of the lost book, they waived the usual fees. Mayor Bloomberg replaced the book when giving Sullenberger the Key to the City (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Keys_to_the_city).[48] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-AP_MSNC-47)[49] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-BBCNewsinfo-48)
Sullenberger threw out the first pitch (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/First_Pitch) of the 2009 Major League Baseball (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball) season for the San Francisco Giants (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Giants). His Giants jersey was inscribed with the name "Sully" and the number 155 - a reference to the 155 people aboard the flight.[50] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Giants-49)

On June 6, 2009, Sullenberger returned to his hometown of Denison, Texas to participate in two events: the city's D-Day (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/D-Day) celebration, and to give the commencement address for his alma mater, Denison High School (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Denison_High_School) marking the 40th anniversary of his own graduation from Denison High.[51] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-50)
He also made an appearance in St. Louis on July 14, 2009, participating in the Red Carpet All-Star parade that took place before the 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/2009_Major_League_Baseball_All-Star_Game).

Which incident was more media friendly? yet, both sets of people survived.. (and I wonder if a British library would have waivered a fine for Peter??:))

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Plane_crash_into_Hudson_River_muchcropped.jpg/180px-Plane_crash_into_Hudson_River_muchcropped.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/File:Plane_crash_into_Hudson_River_muchcropped.jpg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/BA38_Crash.jpg/260px-BA38_Crash.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/File:BA38_Crash.jpg)

[S.F.L.Y]

It's amazing to see the vast difference between different societies responses to incidents that are not that dissimilar.

If the BA038 had ditched the way it "landed" I'm not sure the aircraft would be calmly floating. Would it be possible some day to have an idea of how the BA038 crew handled the situation? (CVR/FDR), beside being valuable flight safety material this would clearly explain why they deserved the medal.

[DA50driver]

Sully actually flew this thing and made some decisions. The autopilot deserves the medal on BA 777. That is not knocking the BA crew, just different circumstances.

[Rainboe]

Stick to your little DA50! You know nothing. How arrogant to come here and make such a statement!

[S.F.L.Y]

You know nothing. How arrogant to come here and make such a statement!

Since you seems to be in the knowledge, would you be so kind and provide us with factual material on the actual BA038 crew cockpit actions?

[TopBunk]

SFLY wrote:If the BA038 had ditched the way it "landed" I'm not sure the aircraft would be calmly floating.

That is a ridiculous analogy to try to make!

There is a world of difference landing on water vs on land, where the runway to land/splash down on is 10 miles long by 2 miles wide and you have a choice of touchdown point and speed and the situation at LHR where there were houses, a petrol station, tube station and a major dual carriageway in the undershoot to the undershoot of the runway!

Two very different scenarios that shared one thing in common - excellent and prioritised decision making and cockpit actions from very competent professional crews that resulted in no fatalities. Jobs well done:D

[S.F.L.Y]

excellent and prioritised decision making and cockpit actions from very competent professional crews

Any insight on the BA038 cockpit action would be appreciated as so far information seems to show the aircraft was under AP trying to maintain the glide path until AP disconnection and stall. What cockpit actions are you referring to?

[Tandemrotor]

S.F.L.Y

Whatever cockpit actions (or inactions) occurred during this incident, it is virtually impossible to conceive of a more successful outcome. Wouldn't you agree? Their flying was 'bang on'.

Any delay to the publication of the report, has far more to do with the subsequent technical determination of cause, than your implied 'cover up' of the crew's actions!

Perhaps it is exactly this kind of implied criticism ("AP trying...blah, blah, until stall" blah, blah..etc.) with the luxury of complete ignorance, that is precisely the kind of societal differences to which 'juniour jetset' refers?

It strikes me as being rather pathetic to be honest.

[S.F.L.Y]

Whatever cockpit actions (or inactions) occurred during this incident

There lies the difference between deserving a medal or not... don't you think?
The Turkish 737 in AMS emphasize similar consequences on low speed under AP.

[Tandemrotor]

S.F.L.Y

Absolutely pathetic!

But since you only seem to have limited military turbine time, I can forgive your ignorance of operating a B777.

[DA50driver]

As the autopilot attempted to maintain the aircraft on the ILS glideslope the airspeed reduced and by 200 ft had reached 108 kt. The stick shaker activated at approximately 170 ft.

This from the AAIB.

Somebody needs to fly his rainbow flag proudly, just like I will go back to my little DA50.

[TopBunk]

Ok SFLY and DA50, tell us what you would have done?

Lowered the nose to fly and Vref and crash short into the aforementioned houses, petrol station, tube station and dual carriageway? What options do you think they hadwhen the engines failed to respond at 2nm final?

There is difference to the AMS TY crash, the TY crew appeared to have lost SA - something that neither the Hudson nor the LHR crews did - they extracted the best performance available to them and saved lives.

I'm sorry but if you don't see that, you shouldn't be anywhere near an aircraft controls.:=

[DA50driver]

I haven't said I would do anything different, I am just pointing out that the AP did a fantastic job down to 170' and 108 knots. Therein lies the difference. One crew had no time, dealt with what they had coming and got very lucky. That is taking nothing away from them at all. The other crew had time to make decisions, and made all the right ones under the circumstances.

[Tandemrotor]

I haven't said I would do anything different

So, you wouldn't have done anything 'differently', you're just p1553d off the crew was congratulated on an outcome that could not have been better?

Is that the main thrust of your argument?

As has been said earlier, the BA crew were not feted in the same way as their US colleagues. Parading at the Superbowl etc. It's simply not the British way.

[anotherthing]

SFLY and DA50 - one of the major differences you seem to gloss over is the fact that the time to react and carry out actions was much different in the two incidents.

BA038 had minimal time and was only going one way - down, quickly, from a very low height. Very little opportunity to move in the lateral plane. If the aircraft hadn't been established, chances were it would have creamed in despite efforts from the crew.

The crew had very little time to do or say anything other than what they did.

Capt Sully, ISTR, had a hell of a lot more time to make a decision - and tell people about it.

Both crews did exceptionally well, with a lot of luck and fortune thrown in (availability of the Hudson for Sully and the large number of vessels able to effect a quick rescue, and the fact that BA038 was was established and pretty well set up for landing).

Both crews deserve praise, to try to say one crew did better than the other is complete tosh, the two incidents are incomparable.

[TheKabaka]

I believe the BA38 crew retracted 1 stage of flap (drag mainly) which extended the glide. Pretty amazing decision I would say.

[merlinxx]

Come on you lot, you weren't there so don't fart around with your anti/pro stuff, you re just making yourselves look juvenile:ugh:

If your are the airmen you consider yourselves to be, then apply the professionalism that comes with that status, rather than being 15 year girls fighting over a magazine article.:=

Grow up please:*

[S.F.L.Y]

the crew was congratulated on an outcome that could not have been better?


I hope the crew wasn't simply congratulated because the outcome couldn't have been better but because of their acts... since everybody seems to agree on the fact they did well, it shouldn't be difficult to explain on which of their action the medals have been awarded. Instead of always ranting when somebody is asking this question (which in any case is meant to insult the crew) why can't anybody elaborate on the precise actions which deserved medals?

The glide path ends hundred of meters after the physical threshold, keeping aiming at it at 108 kts is definitely not an optimal strategy. Of course it wasn't the crew's strategy to aim that far and it's only because the AP was on that the aircraft flew that path. Aiming at the actual touchdown point would have led them to the same place while saving the precious kts they AP spoiled leading to critical Vz.

[Clandestino]

Please ignore the trolls.

First interim AAIB report very clearly stated what the crew did. Some posters here either didn't bother to read it or possess remarkable inability to understand what is written there.

[S.F.L.Y]

First interim AAIB report very clearly stated what the crew did.

It report the AP flew the aircraft until stick shaker followed by high Vz till impact. I might have missed critical crew actions, which is the reason why I'm humbly asking for clarifications and not smart remarks.

It is apparently impossible to share different points of view in a respectful manner when it comes to this topic. :bored:

[chris weston]

Kabaka P200

Agree completely.

Airmanship under pressure.

Recognise it, end of.



CW

[BOAC]

Lowered the nose to fly and Vref and crash short into the aforementioned houses, petrol station, tube station and dual carriageway? What options do you think they hadwhen the engines failed to respond at 2nm final? - most pilots learn early in their flying training that a/c glide further at best L/D than near the stall. There is no reason on earth why 'lowering the nose' would have taken them into 'houses' etc. Have a look at any good text book on total airfame drag - D P Davies?

It is VERY IMPORTANT that the younger generation - in fact any generation - do not go away with this misleading and incorrect attitude to engine failures/loss of power. Any good instructor will point out where 'stretching the glide' is a good idea and where it isn't. There is no hard and fast rule, which is what you are implying. I actually think that from the height at which they 'discovered' the lost power, it was 50/50 whether reducing speed to stretch the glide or going for best glide distance took them further and I make no judgement call on that - I just don't know - wasn't there.

What I do know is that 'lowering the nose' to maintain best L/D will probably save more hulls and lives than reducing to the stall a few hundred feet up. Ask any qualified instructor.