Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

BA 777 Speculation Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.
View Poll Results: What cased the BA B777 crash at LHR?
Engine control computer failure
1,303
37.60%
Low fuel temperature
82
2.37%
Bird strike
11
0.32%
Contaminated fuel
235
6.78%
Pilot error
292
8.43%
Passengers using cell phones
65
1.88%
Electromagnetic pulse
77
2.22%
Terrorists
19
0.55%
Aliens
1,381
39.86%
Voters: 3465. This poll is closed

BA 777 Speculation Thread

Old 20th Jan 2008, 05:06
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: in my caravan
Posts: 24
BA 777 Speculation Thread

Initial Report AAIB Ref: EW/C2008/01/01 Accident

Aircraft Type and Registration: Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM
No & Type of Engines: 2 Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 895-17 turbofan engines
Year of Manufacture: 2001
Date & Time: 17 January 2008 at 1243 hrs
Location: Undershoot RWY 27L, London Heathrow Airport
Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (passenger)
Persons on Board: Crew - 16
Passengers - 136
Injuries: Crew - 4 (minor)
Passengers - 1 (serious)
Passengers - 8 (minor)
Nature of Damage: Substantial
Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation

Following an uneventful flight from Beijing, China, the aircraft was established on an ILS approach to Runway 27L at London Heathrow. Initially the approach progressed normally, with the Autopilot and Autothrottle engaged, until the aircraft was at a height of approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down. The aircraft then descended rapidly and struck the ground, some 1,000 ft short of the paved runway surface, just inside the airfield boundary fence. The aircraft stopped on the very beginning of the paved surface of Runway 27L. During the short ground roll the right main landing gear separated from the wing and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing root. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire. An emergency evacuation via the slides was supervised by the cabin crew and all occupants left the aircraft, some receiving minor injuries.

The AAIB was notified of the accident within a few minutes and a team of Inspectors including engineers, pilots and a flight recorder specialist deployed to Heathrow. In accordance with the established international arrangements the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the USA, representing the State of Design and Manufacture of the aircraft, was informed of the event. The NTSB appointed an Accredited Representative to lead a team from the USA made up of investigators from the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing. A Boeing investigator already in the UK joined the investigation on the evening of the event, the remainder of the team arrived in the UK on Friday 18th January. Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer is also supporting the investigation, an investigator having joined the AAIB team.

Activity at the accident scene was coordinated with the Airport Fire and Rescue Service, the Police, the British Airports Authority and British Airways to ensure the recovery of all relevant evidence, to facilitate the removal of the aircraft and the reinstatement of airport operations.

The flight crew were interviewed on the evening of the event by an AAIB Operations Inspector and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Quick Access Recorder (QAR) were removed for replay. The CVR and FDR have been successfully downloaded at the AAIB laboratories at Farnborough and both records cover the critical final stages of the flight. The QAR was downloaded with the assistance of British Airways and the equipment manufacturer. All of the downloaded information is now the subject of detailed analysis.

Examination of the aircraft systems and engines is ongoing.

Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally until the aircraft was established on late finals for Runway 27L. At approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down, the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond. Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond. The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface.

The investigation is now focussed on more detailed analysis of the Flight Recorder information, collecting further recorded information from various system modules and examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation.
guntslapper is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 06:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
AAIB initial report

Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally
>>>>
until the aircraft was established on late finals[/B] for Runway 27L.
>>>>
As you can see it was established late on finals!
>>>>>
At approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down, the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond.
>>>>
There was no flame out as many post state. The engines still had partial thrust!

Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond. The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface.

From this, it is apparent that at 600 feet, the aircraft is on profile with the speed around Vref, with partial thrust ( somewhere between idle thrust and approach thrust ).

Not an unsalvageable situation!!
Tripper is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:28
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 88
Not an unsalvageable situation!!

It is if there is a failure whereby thrust cannot be increased
yarrayarra is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:30
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Tripper please take your ill informed illogical statements and conclusions elsewhere.
groper is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
until the aircraft was established on late finals[/b] for Runway 27L.
>>>>
As you can see it was established late on finals!
>>>>>

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

Why would you take an English sentence and switch the words around to change the meaning?

you switched "on late finals", which is just stating the aircrafts position......
to .....
"late on finals", which has a different connotation ....

curious .... you know 10 out of 9 pilots are dyslectic
Vic777 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:37
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,714
Tripper, Heathrow has a requirement for a Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) for noise minimisation reasons. As a result it is normal to be in the final landing configuration slightly later. My reading of the initial report is that there is nothing abnormal in the configuration of the aircraft prior to 600' and nothing unusual in the crew's actions.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:40
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Here we go again. Poor Danny.
787FOCAL is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:42
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 17
tripper
late on finals does not equal on finals late !!!!
i think perhaps this is something that you missed maybe due to language differences...
flyboymurphy is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:45
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 17
and oh yeah by your comments...you re an idiot
flyboymurphy is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 07:54
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,051
Had this lock up occured 100' lower or another 300m further out on the approach and this would have been a very different incident!!
Well yes, but in different ways, 100' lower would also have meant closer in and more chance of making the runway (100' equates to approx 1/3 mile - and how short of the runway were they? OK not quite accurate, but certainly would have been pretty close), and 500' lower they would have been pretty much over the runway and almost certainly have made it (especially as you do not normally land right at the start).
foxmoth is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 08:09
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Quite right I was editing the 100ft lower point when you replied (proof before submit next time!!)
What about my point??
Heli-phile is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 08:18
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,684
Look on the bright side. It has pushed the fully automated airliner back a couple of decades.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 08:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Twin Engine Boeing Aircraft using FADEC

Does anybody know if the FADEC system on the LHR 777 is a direct derivation of the FADEC system installed on Chinooks (Mist Rolling in from the Sea, as Paul McCartney would say).
Apollo17 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 09:38
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Sounds alot like no fuel to me ???
Ramrod2 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 09:41
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10
Ramrod refer post 22
BorderLine is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 09:47
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,263
Ramrod,

Use your eyes rather than your ears. The AAIB initial report has the following relevant extract :

A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 09:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 12
I have been reading some of the comments from this and the other-thankfully-closed thread.

As a retired TriStar/400/777 Nigel can I just say AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
X-37 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 09:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: ATLANTIS
Posts: 105
At least I am very happy that the rwy was not blocked by a 744 or similar acft, waiting for T/O. What isf they had to go-around and couldn't??
Lets wait for the AAIB's report! Something will come out of it that and that will make aviation safer again!
Greetz, QTA
quickturnaround is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 09:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Test.............
Kit d'Rection KG is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2008, 09:56
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 1,935
Ramrod, if you were the Captain of the B777 and you had run out fuel like you say, would stand up in front of a press conference?
I would suggest you wouldn't be seen in public if that was the case?
Stationair8 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.