BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a picture of the rat door,or lack of it! (anyway of posting pics onto PPrune??) looks like the rat was out, but with such a force of impact to push the gear through the wing, no reason why the rat could not have fallen out at the same moment...
Guest
Posts: n/a
" Seen the Daily Mail's headline for tomorrow, 'The pilot Grappled with the controls'. "
Despite an unusual (for the Mail) lack of claims that passengers saw their lives flashing before them, the Mail has now excelled itself by informing readers how ILS uses a LASER BEAM to help airliners land.
" the instrument landing system (ILS) approach where a laser beam is followed to help the crew land "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
When will the media EVER learn some basics about flying ?
Despite an unusual (for the Mail) lack of claims that passengers saw their lives flashing before them, the Mail has now excelled itself by informing readers how ILS uses a LASER BEAM to help airliners land.
" the instrument landing system (ILS) approach where a laser beam is followed to help the crew land "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
When will the media EVER learn some basics about flying ?
Fortuitous that 27L at EGLL has a good sized RESA.....doubtless the very soggy ground caused the abrupt deceleration.
Congrats to all those who did a good job. The AAIB will determine who they are!
H49
Congrats to all those who did a good job. The AAIB will determine who they are!
H49
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 48
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez there's an incredible amount of crap in this thread. So long since I've posted I had to make a new account. O_o
777, a fly by wire jet, will auto start its own apu in the event of loss of AC from the transfer busses.
BA don't have the EFB fit, to whoever, mentioned windows as an OS on some systems.
Hell yeah though, it has a lot of computers and even if they all fall over it should still feed fuel to the donks by suction.
It's been demonstrated that the 3 standby instruments are surplus in that theoretically you cannot fail the 777 to the level where they are all thats left, unless of course the batt goes pop too.
In addition to my earlier post (#226) It is possible for a high water content to give an inaccurate fuel quantity reading.
Surely in a nine hour plus flight, contaminated fuel would rear its head before short final?
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?
Other than the battery, yeah.
I think the longer the press didn't know who the crew were the better, last thing the boys need is those gits digging into their lives printing the usual paraphrased, inaccurate drivel, though of course the names are out now anyway.
777, a fly by wire jet, will auto start its own apu in the event of loss of AC from the transfer busses.
BA don't have the EFB fit, to whoever, mentioned windows as an OS on some systems.
Hell yeah though, it has a lot of computers and even if they all fall over it should still feed fuel to the donks by suction.
It's been demonstrated that the 3 standby instruments are surplus in that theoretically you cannot fail the 777 to the level where they are all thats left, unless of course the batt goes pop too.
In addition to my earlier post (#226) It is possible for a high water content to give an inaccurate fuel quantity reading.
Surely in a nine hour plus flight, contaminated fuel would rear its head before short final?
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?
Other than the battery, yeah.
I think the longer the press didn't know who the crew were the better, last thing the boys need is those gits digging into their lives printing the usual paraphrased, inaccurate drivel, though of course the names are out now anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care what the reason they fell out of the sky, the guys at the pointy end must be feeling awful right about now, ya gotta feel for them that's for sure. They (the flt crew) can't be that silly as to let this happen willy nilly, they wouldn't get anywhere near the lattest technology if they showed signs of anything other than shear professionalism.
If & I say If they stuffed up then we shall all learn from it not just them. Am keen like everyone else in here to find out the facts so that 'we' may not be put in the same situation for whatever reason.
You walked away from it guys
CW
If & I say If they stuffed up then we shall all learn from it not just them. Am keen like everyone else in here to find out the facts so that 'we' may not be put in the same situation for whatever reason.
You walked away from it guys
CW
Guest
Posts: n/a
" The 'favourite' explanations seem to be either wind-shear or some sort of complete power loss on short final. "
Is there ANY history of serious wind shear at Heathrow ?
" this was simply a cocked up approach...similar to a particular MD11 in Hong Kong a few years ago...loss of airspeed followed by a high sink rate prior to touch down...in windy conditions "
Those WINDY CONDITIONS you refers to (China Airlines wasn't it - again ? )were a damn storm. The weather at Heathrow was nothing unusual. British weather is really quite mild generally.
Is there ANY history of serious wind shear at Heathrow ?
" this was simply a cocked up approach...similar to a particular MD11 in Hong Kong a few years ago...loss of airspeed followed by a high sink rate prior to touch down...in windy conditions "
Those WINDY CONDITIONS you refers to (China Airlines wasn't it - again ? )were a damn storm. The weather at Heathrow was nothing unusual. British weather is really quite mild generally.
I would like to say well done to all crew on this aircraft. No matter what the circumstances that led up to this incident, the fact that they made the airport perimeter is incredible.
BuzzBox;
Yes, understand the AOM remarks, thank you - I don't want to take the thread off on a tangent because frankly I don't think there is any low-hanging fruit in the wind-shear/airspeed/energy line of thinking. This was not a significant windshear situation and there was no evidence in the METARS of convective activity at the time.
I very much want to stay away from Airbus-Boeing comments at all times! I am just trying to clarify my understanding of the two different a/t systems.
In the 777, the a/t will:
- fly the command speed which can be either be calculated by the FMC according to weight, landing flap config etc, or it can be modified by the crew according to the standard formula for such occasions, (Vref plus half the wind, plus all the gust up to a max of 20kts, or slight variations on the theme);
- In other words, if Vref is 145kts making the approach speed Vref + 5, (command speed) 150kts, that's what the a/t's will fly, and if gusts or shear causes the aircraft to lose speed below that command speed, they will (very swiftly, the AOM indicates) add thrust to maintain the command speed of 150kts.
- Groundspeed is not sensed for this purpose, so in a 20kt headwind component, the groundspeed of the aircraft would be 130kts.
The Airbus 320/340 GSMini autothrust mode will however, command sufficient airspeed so as to maintain the groundspeed equal to the approach speed set in the FMC.
- If Vapp (Vref + 5) on a 340 is 150kts and that is the approach speed calculated by or entered into the FMC and there is a 20kt headwind component, the a/t system will fly the approach to maintain 150kts groundspeed. The resulting airspeed could be as high as 170kts, (getting close to flap limiting speed). GSMini mode is entered when final landing flap configuration is set.
The a/t system is sufficiently aggressive so as to make quick modifications to the groundspeed flown so as not to compromise the landing distances required. The GSMini can move up and down the airspeed scale quite rapidly in gusty conditions or as strong winds shear out closer to the ground.
We used the technique decades ago in the '8 when INS was first introduced and I'm sure many here will be familiar with it.
Again, I do NOT want to cause thread drift or even hint that there is an Airbus/Boeing discussion here - I know there is the potential to do so in these remarks. There is no such intent - I just wanted to understand how the 777 a/t system behaved so I could better understand aspects of the aircraft's energy level. As I say, I don't think these areas of speculation will be fruitful. Thanks for your response.
PJ2
From the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual for the 777:
I very much want to stay away from Airbus-Boeing comments at all times! I am just trying to clarify my understanding of the two different a/t systems.
In the 777, the a/t will:
- fly the command speed which can be either be calculated by the FMC according to weight, landing flap config etc, or it can be modified by the crew according to the standard formula for such occasions, (Vref plus half the wind, plus all the gust up to a max of 20kts, or slight variations on the theme);
- In other words, if Vref is 145kts making the approach speed Vref + 5, (command speed) 150kts, that's what the a/t's will fly, and if gusts or shear causes the aircraft to lose speed below that command speed, they will (very swiftly, the AOM indicates) add thrust to maintain the command speed of 150kts.
- Groundspeed is not sensed for this purpose, so in a 20kt headwind component, the groundspeed of the aircraft would be 130kts.
The Airbus 320/340 GSMini autothrust mode will however, command sufficient airspeed so as to maintain the groundspeed equal to the approach speed set in the FMC.
- If Vapp (Vref + 5) on a 340 is 150kts and that is the approach speed calculated by or entered into the FMC and there is a 20kt headwind component, the a/t system will fly the approach to maintain 150kts groundspeed. The resulting airspeed could be as high as 170kts, (getting close to flap limiting speed). GSMini mode is entered when final landing flap configuration is set.
The a/t system is sufficiently aggressive so as to make quick modifications to the groundspeed flown so as not to compromise the landing distances required. The GSMini can move up and down the airspeed scale quite rapidly in gusty conditions or as strong winds shear out closer to the ground.
We used the technique decades ago in the '8 when INS was first introduced and I'm sure many here will be familiar with it.
Again, I do NOT want to cause thread drift or even hint that there is an Airbus/Boeing discussion here - I know there is the potential to do so in these remarks. There is no such intent - I just wanted to understand how the 777 a/t system behaved so I could better understand aspects of the aircraft's energy level. As I say, I don't think these areas of speculation will be fruitful. Thanks for your response.
PJ2
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All airliners I have ever known about have had battery as the first source of power. The RAT if I remember right charges the batteries which provide the power to the systems.
On most airliners, the RAT supplies AC power to the Emergency bus. This drives at least one TRU which supplies power to the battery bus. The Standby instruments and some other essential services are AC services driven directly from the Emergency bus.
Light piston a/c and some turboprops on the other hand, has a mainly DC system. Your experience seems to be more on that side of the weight category.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 48
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAT on a 777 can provide enough to fly the thing, period.
This looks like both engines, for whatever reason, stopped. In the landing config thats gonna ruin anyones day.
To the muppet that suggested a cocked up approach.... I'd eat my hat, your hat, and everyone else's hat if it came out that was the cause. Or fuel starvation for that matter. We're not talking about bongo bongo airways here for heaven's sake.
I've just remembered why I haven't been on here in years, too many resident retards and not enough people with brains to engage.
This looks like both engines, for whatever reason, stopped. In the landing config thats gonna ruin anyones day.
To the muppet that suggested a cocked up approach.... I'd eat my hat, your hat, and everyone else's hat if it came out that was the cause. Or fuel starvation for that matter. We're not talking about bongo bongo airways here for heaven's sake.
I've just remembered why I haven't been on here in years, too many resident retards and not enough people with brains to engage.
I too personally doubt fuel exhaustion or mismanagement but you don’t rule out investigating it. With the wind like what it was on the TAF I strongly suspect it could have been low level windshear though. A quick pulling of the QAR and the FDR and CVR will ultimately determine what went wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No speculation......I'm happy to wait till the AAIB report.
I hate using LHR (operationally or as a passenger) for so many reasons........but there is no doubting the professionalism of all the emergency services, and of course the ATC'ers who, I have no doubt, did a fantastic job yesterday given the incident itself, and the immediate high workload in managing the diversions. Well done to all.
Regardless of the cause, it could so easily have been so much worse.
I hate using LHR (operationally or as a passenger) for so many reasons........but there is no doubting the professionalism of all the emergency services, and of course the ATC'ers who, I have no doubt, did a fantastic job yesterday given the incident itself, and the immediate high workload in managing the diversions. Well done to all.
Regardless of the cause, it could so easily have been so much worse.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On most airliners, the RAT supplies AC power to the Emergency bus.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC website....
Witnesses on board the plane said they only became aware of a problem just before the plane was due to land.
Passenger Jerome Ensinck said: "There was no indication that we were going to have a bad landing. When we hit the ground, it was extremely rough, but I've had rough landings before and I thought 'This is the roughest I've had'."
Antonio De Crescenzo, 52, from Naples in Italy, said: "We were coming in to land but the plane felt like it should have been taking off. The engines were roaring and then we landed and it was just banging.
Before you shoot me down in flames I know witnesses cannot be fully relied upon following an incident like this but from what nearly all are saying it would appear that at least one engine was operating prior to touching down. Nobody has said the aircraft went quiet, the lights went out or flickered which might suggest that the aircraft had lost electrical and or engine power.
This is going to be a very interesting investigation and I am intrigued to see what the AAIB report in their preliminary findings.
Witnesses on board the plane said they only became aware of a problem just before the plane was due to land.
Passenger Jerome Ensinck said: "There was no indication that we were going to have a bad landing. When we hit the ground, it was extremely rough, but I've had rough landings before and I thought 'This is the roughest I've had'."
Antonio De Crescenzo, 52, from Naples in Italy, said: "We were coming in to land but the plane felt like it should have been taking off. The engines were roaring and then we landed and it was just banging.
Before you shoot me down in flames I know witnesses cannot be fully relied upon following an incident like this but from what nearly all are saying it would appear that at least one engine was operating prior to touching down. Nobody has said the aircraft went quiet, the lights went out or flickered which might suggest that the aircraft had lost electrical and or engine power.
This is going to be a very interesting investigation and I am intrigued to see what the AAIB report in their preliminary findings.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see and speculate once the facts are out
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard you on BBC
Hey Danny
Just heard you on BBC 5live. Very wise of you to ask the general public to be more circumspect when commenting the pilot on his bravery. You might just be the first person to do so. Kudos to you!
- Philip
Just heard you on BBC 5live. Very wise of you to ask the general public to be more circumspect when commenting the pilot on his bravery. You might just be the first person to do so. Kudos to you!
- Philip
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual, your noble defence of the 777 commander would have benefited greatly from the use of a dictionary.
Superfluous adj.;
1./ Exceeding what is sufficient, extravagant, superabundant.
2./ Not needed or required, uncalled for, unnecessary.
He is not only a superfluous operator
1./ Exceeding what is sufficient, extravagant, superabundant.
2./ Not needed or required, uncalled for, unnecessary.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wailt for the AAIB
In keeping with a few other cool heads, I recommend we wait for the AAIB to report. I wrote to BBC 2's Newsnight programme last night to complain about the tendency to consult "experts" - how many of them are rated to fly or maintain the 777? - and the appalling speculation on the part of their "science" correspondent Susan Watts. She must have misconstrued some "valid" speculation and then spouted absolute b*ll*cks. I thought I knew how ILS worked; now I'm not so sure.
The crew did a good job, regardless of cause but we wait to see what put them in that situation (and I'm not implying anything!).
While not commenting directly on this incident, fuel starvation has been the cause of incidents and accidents and it has affected modern aircraft:
Gimli glider (Air Canada 767 in 1983- combination of technical failure and mismanagement)
Air Transat 231 in 2001 (maintenance error - failure to consult approved data during an engine change - compounded by crew's failure to consult FCOM when faced with the consequent leak from the right engine 5 days later).
Both classic examples of accident causation - the holes lining up - and there but for the grace of God...we are all susceptible.
The crew did a good job, regardless of cause but we wait to see what put them in that situation (and I'm not implying anything!).
While not commenting directly on this incident, fuel starvation has been the cause of incidents and accidents and it has affected modern aircraft:
Gimli glider (Air Canada 767 in 1983- combination of technical failure and mismanagement)
Air Transat 231 in 2001 (maintenance error - failure to consult approved data during an engine change - compounded by crew's failure to consult FCOM when faced with the consequent leak from the right engine 5 days later).
Both classic examples of accident causation - the holes lining up - and there but for the grace of God...we are all susceptible.