BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Yes the APU fire switch is to "Override and Pull" in an EVACUATION , what i meant was that the APU is usually started when clear of the runway, the fact that it was started in flight either MANUALLY or AUTOMATAICALLY means they needed another source of power, an therefore must have had some warning of a problem.
Last edited by farrari; 18th Jan 2008 at 03:52.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any history of electro-magnetic interference causing this type of problem with civil aircraft systems? All aircraft and avionics are subjected to qualification testing to ensure they are suitably protected from normal electro-magnetic interference so it's unlikely to be the cause of the accident unless there was a particularly powerful electro-magnetic source and/or there was a system fault that increased susceptibility. Although somewhat improbable it is, theoretically, a possible cause.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is case off running out of fuel, I hope the paxs sue the pants out of BA. Teach the bean counters a lesson for not allowing the pilots to carry fuel. A 1245 hr flt from China and plan resevre of 30 mins. If this is so, once again, blame goin to be put on the laps of the poor pilot. CAA should heftily fine aircraft landing with less than min fuel but then CAA is in BA's pocket. But then no lost of life here, so not a dam thing will happen. 
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the speculations by real pilots, always interesting to hear their ideas, yes it's speculation, so what. As far as all the whining about the news media, who cares, these people are always in a hurry to put out a report, good bad or otherwise, what facts they don't have they make up, real aviation experts know the information is worthless, I personally go to PPRuNe when I hear about an accident however in this case, couldn't do to system overload. 
One hell of good dead stick landing and successful EVAC, well done.
One hell of good dead stick landing and successful EVAC, well done.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need some info here please - does the autothrust cater to headwind component to maintain the energy level of the aircraft in much the same was as Groundspeed-Mini on the 320/340 type aircraft? If not, then the crew would have to manually change the addition to Vref (above the usual 5kts). Just a point of info, nothing else - thanks.
Further. I really doubt that anyone arrives intentionally with 30mins fuel. They would either have alternate fuel or the mandatory LHR holding reserve and some extra ammount that substitutes for alternate fuel.
Even further. If anyone doesn't like specualtion about this incident go and read the BBC website. This is the professional pilot RUMOR network. Get over it, you are at the wrong place.
Even more further. It COULD be Kegworth revisited quite easily. Yet again, it may not be.
All I've got to say is lucky they were in a 777 and not another popular type with a center MLG bogey. For the aircraft to have hit the ground in a such a way as to force the MLG mounts up through the wings, a center MLG bogey being forced up into the main cabin would have been a very grim outcome for passengers in that section.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can we perhaps congratulate the cabin crew? We know for a fact that they evacuated the aircraft without serious injury or loss of life...
As a frequent SLF, I second this.
We trust in the CC in emergencies and it is reassuring to see everyone out with only a few minor injuries.
Well done.
As a frequent SLF, I second this.
We trust in the CC in emergencies and it is reassuring to see everyone out with only a few minor injuries.
Well done.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Alfold, Surrey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A recovering journalist writes
As a recovering (i.e., no longer very active) member of this despised profession, I congratulate you all for noticing the torrent of rubbish published in the aftermath of this incident. The 24-hour news channels are the worst but the papers are dreadful, too.
What I can state with authority is that this is roughly the standard of journalism as it is applied to more or less any subject. In this case you have noticed it is crap because you know something about the subject. If you work in the NHS then you will notice that the media's coverage of health is delusional. if you are a teacher, then you will know not to believe a word of the drivel published on education. Unlike pilots, no training whatsoever is required to be a journalist.
You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to.
Actually, the top line of that ditty is wrong, too.
Anyway, this is just a reminder that on any given news story, any resemblance to the facts is completely coincidental.
The only journalism you should even start to trust is that signed by people who are known to you and who have a demonstrated track record. These individuals are few and far between...
What I can state with authority is that this is roughly the standard of journalism as it is applied to more or less any subject. In this case you have noticed it is crap because you know something about the subject. If you work in the NHS then you will notice that the media's coverage of health is delusional. if you are a teacher, then you will know not to believe a word of the drivel published on education. Unlike pilots, no training whatsoever is required to be a journalist.
You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to.
Actually, the top line of that ditty is wrong, too.
Anyway, this is just a reminder that on any given news story, any resemblance to the facts is completely coincidental.
The only journalism you should even start to trust is that signed by people who are known to you and who have a demonstrated track record. These individuals are few and far between...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hummmm...
To those of you who think that the crew intentionally landed short into the grass.... pray tell: what would be the point?
Duh! Don't you think they could have LANDED on the runway?
People, please!!
They stalled to land into the grass to avoid crashing on the runway
People, please!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing is clear: this event sets a new standard for short-field landing performance with the 777.
A little sketch on a bar-napkin suggests that the skillful pilots of the incident aircraft managed a very successful unexpected low-speed arrival some 2000 feet short of the nominal touch-down point.
If one plugs in guesswork numbers for a normal final approach speed vs an improvised stretch manoeuver at the lower edge of feasible slow flight, it would seem that the time window available to the crew for discovering, identifying, adapting to and then successfully handling the extraordinary situation of power loss on short final might have been as little as ten to twenty seconds. From a perceptual point of view those would have been very long seconds, but still not long enough to do other than apply instinct and training in a direct and irreversible manner, then see what happens.
Well done!
A little sketch on a bar-napkin suggests that the skillful pilots of the incident aircraft managed a very successful unexpected low-speed arrival some 2000 feet short of the nominal touch-down point.
If one plugs in guesswork numbers for a normal final approach speed vs an improvised stretch manoeuver at the lower edge of feasible slow flight, it would seem that the time window available to the crew for discovering, identifying, adapting to and then successfully handling the extraordinary situation of power loss on short final might have been as little as ten to twenty seconds. From a perceptual point of view those would have been very long seconds, but still not long enough to do other than apply instinct and training in a direct and irreversible manner, then see what happens.
Well done!
Matthew;
Thank you for being honest about your age and your interest in becoming a pilot. Posting your theories here takes a bit of courage but I'm glad you did. One thing - you should keep a copy of your post tucked away so that as you grow into a career in aviation, you can refer to it. I think you should follow your dream. Also, the fact that you have taken the time and trouble to offer your thoughts on an accident may someday make you a flight safety expert as well as a pilot. We can always use both!
All this said, you will discover that pathways to accidents and causal behaviours in very large transport aircraft likely preclude what you are posing. My thoughts would be, read carefully all the posts here and listen to your own thoughts about what makes sense and what doesn't. Develop a "sixth sense" about when something rings true and when it may be questionable. It is as much to do with the language used, syntax and follow-through as it is just offering up "facts" and thinking out loud without thinking...
There are some very fine, and deeply experienced minds at work here on this forum but there are also charlatans, people who wish to convince rather than inform and angry people who wish to control a freely-offered dialogue. Some dislike speculation in advance of the facts - a valid view providing one doesn't know what one is talking about!
I think it is good to step back a bit, read everything, read as much as you can about aviation and flying large transports, read everything you can get your hands on about accident investigation and why things happen the way they do. I'm not saying don't contribute because posting here is a very good place to learn and try your ideas out so long as you are prepared for a rough ride!
best,
PJ2
Thank you for being honest about your age and your interest in becoming a pilot. Posting your theories here takes a bit of courage but I'm glad you did. One thing - you should keep a copy of your post tucked away so that as you grow into a career in aviation, you can refer to it. I think you should follow your dream. Also, the fact that you have taken the time and trouble to offer your thoughts on an accident may someday make you a flight safety expert as well as a pilot. We can always use both!
All this said, you will discover that pathways to accidents and causal behaviours in very large transport aircraft likely preclude what you are posing. My thoughts would be, read carefully all the posts here and listen to your own thoughts about what makes sense and what doesn't. Develop a "sixth sense" about when something rings true and when it may be questionable. It is as much to do with the language used, syntax and follow-through as it is just offering up "facts" and thinking out loud without thinking...
There are some very fine, and deeply experienced minds at work here on this forum but there are also charlatans, people who wish to convince rather than inform and angry people who wish to control a freely-offered dialogue. Some dislike speculation in advance of the facts - a valid view providing one doesn't know what one is talking about!
I think it is good to step back a bit, read everything, read as much as you can about aviation and flying large transports, read everything you can get your hands on about accident investigation and why things happen the way they do. I'm not saying don't contribute because posting here is a very good place to learn and try your ideas out so long as you are prepared for a rough ride!
best,
PJ2
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A good reason to have your seatbelt FIRMLY fastened, incidents like this and turbulence lik in Canada recently are perfect examples of why they are installed!
J
J
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it does such as in the case of a double engine failure (can anyone make out if the RAT had deployed?) or you would manually start it after a single engine failure. 
Last edited by The Messiah; 18th Jan 2008 at 09:31.
&&&;
Okay, that doesn't really answer the question but I'll leave it for now, tx.
It just flies at the bugged speed with the required ammount of thrust for the headwind/ground speed.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aussii
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Drain check on DY chk
On the 777 daily check for ERs you usually do the Fuel Drain check for water contamination
Drain 1 gallon from center fuel tank sump drain valve as per AMM.
I guess if this was not done in PEK due cold weather, the water content in the tank could have been higher than realised. Would explain both engines flaming out. Crew thinking indication they had fuel.
Drain 1 gallon from center fuel tank sump drain valve as per AMM.
I guess if this was not done in PEK due cold weather, the water content in the tank could have been higher than realised. Would explain both engines flaming out. Crew thinking indication they had fuel.