Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)

Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:26
  #221 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,523
Received 106 Likes on 60 Posts
Yeah, fair enough. I just noticed it because in my Certificate IV in Accident Investigation at Broady TAFE, they told us to look for that sorta thing!

Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:33
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane
Age: 57
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
no posts or news article have said whether they broadcast that they were having an emergency?

no radio = no power?
theFATchuckster is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:42
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they would have had battery at minimum, so radio would still be working. I am surprised no mention has been made of any abnormal radio communications or anything at all coming from anyone in ATC.

The PPL pilot who witnessed the planes approach said it was banking heavily and not making a straight in approach. If I recall all of the approaches for these runways are typical straight line approaches from a FAF, that was definately not what he described seeing. Which says to me that there had to be some communication of some abnormality before that 400 ft high engine flameout.

One thing I have not heard any mention of is whether 27L was even an active landing runway at the time.
downunderscouser is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:43
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Congratulations also to London ATC. In the aftermath of the accident they remained very calm and professional when dealing with the many holding and diverting aircraft. In a very british statement reminiscent of Lawrence (Titus) Oates last words (see Scott's Antartic expedition) ATC said " we're just cleaning up a bit of debris from the runway, we're not sure how long it will be !"
MrWooby is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:45
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the photo's the APU inlet is open, so it apparently was running.
Is it common to have the APU running when landing the 777?

M
XPMorten is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:45
  #226 (permalink)  
&&&
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they would have had battery at minimum, so radio would still be working. I am surprised no mention has been made of any abnormal radio communications or anything at all coming from anyone in ATC.

The PPL pilot who witnessed the planes approach said it was banking heavily and not making a straight in approach. If I recall all of the approaches for these runways are typical straight line approaches from a FAF, that was definately not what he described seeing. Which says to me that there had to be some communication of some abnormality before that 400 ft high engine flameout.

One thing I have not heard any mention of is whether 27L was even an active landing runway at the time.
Stupider and stupider.

27L is almost always active, it only closes at night. This was day.
They were flying and dealing with a problem. Ever heard of aviate, navigate, communicate?
What a PPL saw is about as reliable as what a journalist saw.
&&& is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:49
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I too thought of water contamination but on a flight of that length, water being heavier than fuel, and fuel being picked up from the bottom of the tank, I would expect water contamination to show its ugly head a lot earlier in the flight.
life_sentence_as_AME is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:53
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 257
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Noddys car....I think water content in the fuel would have reared its head a lot earlier as it collects in the lowest point in the tank and would normally get sloshed around with the fuel by the jet pumps....Forgive the wording its been a long night but i think someone out there knows what I mean!
vs69 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:58
  #229 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ferrari,
The rudder is not unpowered, powered by 3 Power control units, left, centre and right hydraulics and 3 actuator control electronics.
It is powered whilst there is hydraulic pressure but will deflect in the wind when hydraulic pressure is terminated.
HotDog is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:58
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,188
Received 89 Likes on 50 Posts
Not necessarily, they wouldn't need to add anything (above ref plus +5) if they were using autothrottle.

PJ2:

According to Boeing procedures for the 777, speed additives are only required when using manual thrust. If the autothrust is engaged, which it normally is, then the MCP command window is set to Vref+5.

From the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual for the 777: "Sufficient wind and gust protection is available with the auto-thrust engaged because the auto-thrust is designed to adjust thrust rapidly when the airspeed drops below command speed while reducing thrust slowly when the airspeed exceeds command speed. In turbulence, the result is that average thrust is higher than necessary to maintain command speed. This results in an average speed exceeding command speed."
BuzzBox is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 04:59
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'........the water content in the tank could have been higher than realised. Would explain both engines flaming out'

Unless they just selected a new tank that happened to contain enough water and supplied both engines--not very likely. Water would be the first out.


This was an extremely close call. Glad there is no puzzle to assemble.
BigJETS is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:07
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sounds more like an FJ Holden to me
SeldomFixit is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:08
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 5 Posts
I'd be checking the fuel quality in Beijing.....
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:10
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,307
Received 340 Likes on 131 Posts
In the fullness of time the causes will be revealed. If it was a birdstrike, it must have been some flock of birds.

In the meantime it sobering to think that a modern airliner operated by a first world airline could end up like this.

As a pilot - it reminds us that it can happen anytime, to anyone.
As a pax - reinforces the importance of listening to the safety announcements and reading the emergency card in your seatback pocket.
Chronic Snoozer is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:11
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,188
Received 89 Likes on 50 Posts
On the photo's the APU inlet is open, so it apparently was running.
Is it common to have the APU running when landing the 777?
XPMorten:

As stated in a previous post, if both engines lost power there would have been no AC electrical power to the transfer busses, and the APU would have attempted to start automatically. That could be the reason for the APU inlet door being open.

Normally, the APU is not running for landing, unless it is required by a QRH or MEL procedure.
BuzzBox is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:13
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, they were using what they had left from the outbound leg, right up to the Loc Antenna at LHR................
SeldomFixit is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:17
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To praise the pilots as heroes without all the facts is worse than the standard shouting of Pilot error. How much farther is the fall from grace then when the truth could later be found out to be in opposition?
Cubbie is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:17
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Downunderscouser
I remember the words on my 777 (engineers) course......the only source of standby power on the 777 is the RAT...... probably not a lot of use by the time it deployed and spun up in this case?
spannersatKL is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:18
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: brisbane
Posts: 407
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Nope,sorry but I cannot see a BA flight running out of fuel..........some Indo airline maybe but not Nigel.
Best stop and wait for the facts!
greenslopes is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 05:26
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 5 Posts
I didn't say they ran out of fuel, but there are only two things that can practically fail both engines at the same time. One is fuel starvation caused by not having enough fuel or mismanaging what you have.... very difficult to do in a 777 and there appears to have been no mayday call or low fuel advisory to ATC.

The other thing is contaminated fuel. Considering the aircraft was out of Beijing, this would be the first thing I would be checking if I was in the management of any airline flying out of there.

If it wasn't one of those two things, then I am stumped.
Capt Kremin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.