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, 10:08
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Staines UK
Posts: 5
http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html
jetnoise2007 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:14
  #302 (permalink)  
N1
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Posts: 1
CDA

Will this one count towards a CDA?
N1 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:19
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South of Beirut, North of Aden
Age: 42
Posts: 84
Hi all,

Lots of mention of windshear but not much about vortex wake. COULD explain a wing drop. Seen it many times from the tower though I would add that it SHOULD NOT cause an incident like this if the a/c was in all other ways flying normally.

In response to so many other posts; most of the reporting from the press, from what I've seen, has been absolute rot. With regards to all the speculation, sorry folks, human nature and you ain't gonna stop it. If you don't like it I suggest you wait on the AAIB website instead of sitting on a RUMOUR website.

Best wishes to all on board and ground personnel involved.

CR.
choclit runway is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:20
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1
quick question...

...what are the normal approach speed and stall speed for a 777?
pjs_fly is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:23
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Well, whatever the cause of the short landing it was a lucky escape for West London. Probably not a popular view on this forum but the appoaches over central / west london are simply insane for the amount of traffic that now uses LHR.

I'm not anti airport, 27L used to be my local runway when I worked in technical block A
RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:24
  #306 (permalink)  

Cool as a moosp
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
A colleague of mine flew several profiles on the 777-200 sim this morning (the real one, please, not the MS version) failing various engines at 500 and 300 ft on the LHR 27L model. A failure of 2 engines between 500 and 300 feet, with an attempt to stretch the glide towards stall speed produced a touchdown at a similar point on the visual model as the BA aircraft.

All this proves is that the simulator software will produce this effect. It does not indicate that a double engine failure on a BA 777 in that environment will produce the same effect. However, for those of you who are professional pilots on B777 this may be of interest to you.

Like most of the professional pilots on this site, I despair of the ignorance of many posters.

Please ladies and gentlemen, if you are not a professional pilot with experience of flying a 777, restrict your posts to facts that you know, or facts that have been communicated to you. Ask as many questions as you like, and ppruners with appropriate experience will attempt, bandwith permitting, to give you answers.

If you post rubbish, you will be judged and classed by professional pilots as rubbish.
moosp is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:26
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 676
the RAT was deployed. here is the picture:

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pict...72_gymmm15.jpg

So therefore it was a double engine flame out.....I guess. And that seems more likely than windshear. Specifically because the RAT is deployed.

Do the CVR and the FDR continue to work on a 777 with the engines shutdown?
Today 11:36
The CVR and FDR will operate even if both engines are failed/not operating, if the airplane is airborne.
fox niner is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:29
  #308 (permalink)  

aka Capt PPRuNe
 
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Jetnoise2007's pictures provide some interesting views of the engines:

Left engine: Right engine:

No doubt those with better analytical skills will jump in here but it looks from the damage to the fan blades as though Left engine was producing some rotation when it ate the dirt whilst the right engine fan blades appear to be relatively undamaged.
Danny is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:36
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 169
After being told to turn off mobiles, laptops and all other electrical equipment due to interference with the aircraft controls. Could this be a ground based outside influence?

An "electronic storm" or whatever the geeks call it?

If there is fuel still on the aircraft, as reported by the beeb yesterday (although with one main gear ripped off and the other stuffed through the trailing edge I cant believe there wouldnt be a leak with potential fire risk??)
I cant think of anything failure-wise that would end up with a total loss of power.
Buzz Lightyear is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:37
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 227
Nobody seems to have mentioned the landing gear.

News report paraphrase: 'The landing gear deployed very late.'

-Uninformed speculation hat on

Could this not suggest that problems were occuring before the normal time for gear extension? 1500ft? Or do the 777 hydraulic systems have enough accumulator pressure to raise the landing gear, assuming it is raised hydraulically?
BHenderson is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:39
  #311 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 1,282
Statement from the AAIB website today:-
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_ne...nuary_2008.cfm
sky9 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:40
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
If anybody has accident investigation experience, please take a look at the pics in the earlier post ()

Maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there, but... It looks like the blades of the first fan on the number 1 engine are all missing their tips. That's not the case on the number 2. Now, the cowling on number 1 seems to have suffered more damage that the cowling on number 2 (hard to say with the mud). So number 2 could have been spinning but the blades suffered no damage due to intact (ish) cowling. But could someone with adequate knowledge tell me whether the blade damage on number 1 could have occured with just a windmilling fan or would you expect some level of thrust to be present? If you have an opinion, please state your background so we have some idea about the depth of your knowledge.

On a side note, can you confirm that the RAT on the 777 would only deploy for double engine failure (as opposed to single)? The answer is probably in a previous post but with all the "server is too busy" hits, I don't have the patience to look

Cheers

P
Permafrost_ATPL is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 10:49
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by fox niner
the RAT was deployed.
I am not sure you can conclude that the RAT was deployed from that picture. That the RAT is visible could be due to damage to the surrounding structure. The RAT doesn't appear to be damaged either, although the picture resolution makes details difficult to see.

With regards to the apparent difference in engine damage, as the RH MLG appears to have detached completely, while the LH did not, there would probably have been some difference in the ground clearance, or lack of, between the two engines.

Last edited by Clarence Oveur; 18th Jan 2008 at 11:16.
Clarence Oveur is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 11:15
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 24
Does anyone know what spec Av fuel is uplifted out of Bejing?
The temps enroute were very low with -73 degrees OAT at around 35,000 ft.
Our fuel temp got as low as -43 degrees C but we had Jet A1. Would have been a different story with straight Jet A.
The 777 was relatively lightly loaded and would have climbed to a higher alt and more quickly and cold soaked for longer. Just wondering if the power loss (if indeed there was one) could be related to fuel icing or more probably fuel waxing. Any fuel flow restriction would not be so apparent at low thrust settings, as in the descent, but may have become an issue when power was applied during the later arrival stage. This may have led to a total or partial engine failures.

Pure speculation I know. Just tossing around ideas.
cowpatz is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 11:16
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Loose rivets
...and this includes any other low post Ppruners that think they have the right to tell us that we shouldn't discuss this matter -- until it has been fully investigated.
I agree with them. The speculation in here such as "The B777 is NOT fly-by-wire" and other dross is stomach-turning. If you have no clue about airliners, fly-by-wire, gliding, how much noise an engine makes with power on or off, stalling, AoA, RATs, windshear, fuel policies, etc etc etc, then why not just wait for the facts? ...and save the bandwidth.
GAS guy is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 11:26
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Look at the flaps. Correct landing settings?
Skylion is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 11:31
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 726
To put possible causes to one side for a moment, at what point do they attempt to recover the baggage from the hold (and presumably the cabin)? Obviously it's not a trivial thing to unload, and they won't want to disturb the evidence, but there are presumably pax from the flight stuck away from home with nothing that they weren't carrying in their pockets (although I'd guess that BA will be taking care of them). Obviously if there had been a fire then there probably wouldn't be enough to recover, but it's only been slightly squished in this case.

Has the man with the pot of white paint been to visit yet?
llondel is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 11:33
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 238
Question

Just looked at the pictures at http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pict...72_gymmm20.jpg and http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pict...772_gymmm3.jpg

Does anyone think they look like they were rotating at impact?

The fan blades look practically undamaged....

Well scratch that for the No 1 engine, clearly I wasn't looking hard enough!

<fx: embarrassed cough>

Shuffles away....

Last edited by Feathers McGraw; 18th Jan 2008 at 11:52. Reason: Eyesight problems!
Feathers McGraw is online now  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 11:35
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 676
I am not sure you can conclude that the RAT was deployed from that picture. That the RAT is visible could be due to damage to the surrounding structure.
Well, you could be right there capt. Oveur. But it looks like a deployed RAT so chances are it is a deployed RAT. Seems more plausible than windshear. But in all fairness, the structure around it is quite messed up.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fuel on the 777:

Does anyone know what spec Av fuel is uplifted out of Bejing?
The temps enroute were very low with -73 degrees OAT at around 35,000 ft.
Our fuel temp got as low as -43 degrees C but we had Jet A1. Would have been a different story with straight Jet A.
The 777 was relatively lightly loaded and would have climbed to a higher alt and more quickly and cold soaked for longer.
The 777 is not prone to fuel icing. the fuel tanks are positioned in the wings in such a way that the OAT can not "reach" the fuel and cool it down as much.

I have not seen a colder fuel temperature than around -30 degrees C on the B777, also overflying siberia. A 747 is much more affected by fuel cooling.
In China we get uplifted with jet A1 or TC1. (russian grade)

Alright. I'll be cleaning out the shed for a couple of hours. See you guys later this evening.
fox niner is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 11:39
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Several eye witness reports from passengers onboard the aircraft suggest that they could hear louder than normal engine noise on the approach and a higher deck angle sensation than they are used to; so why are people coming to the conclusion the aircraft suffered a double engine failure. The short video of the a/c's approach confirms it was at an unusually high angle of attack, the approach path flown is consistent with the escape manoeuvre to be executed when encountering windshear. Based upon the facts, the two most likely scenarios which caused the a/c to land short are microburst or wake vortices encounter.
aviat179 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.