BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
standard stuff Sandbanks!
Captain in Left hand seat. SFO flying aircraft from Right hand seat, FO (surplus to requirements, though could assist with checklists etc) sitting behind on jump seat.
Captain in Left hand seat. SFO flying aircraft from Right hand seat, FO (surplus to requirements, though could assist with checklists etc) sitting behind on jump seat.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Age: 48
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the AAIB link... http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_ne...ial_report.cfm
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question 1 - If both engines fail to respond to thrust levers then is fuel starvation to both engines a possibility?
Question 2 - Do BA 777 procedures insist that each engine is fed from separate fuel tanks for approach and landing, or would it be permitted to feed both engines from one tank?
Question 3 - What warnings and indications would the 777 automatically give if the fuel content in a fuel tank was approaching zero?
Question 2 - Do BA 777 procedures insist that each engine is fed from separate fuel tanks for approach and landing, or would it be permitted to feed both engines from one tank?
Question 3 - What warnings and indications would the 777 automatically give if the fuel content in a fuel tank was approaching zero?
Does anyone really think that if a 777 had total power loss, and no reason could be given straight away that they would let the rest of the 777 fleet keep flying??? I think not......
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: "Big silver bird in sky"
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
md80forum,
what have you been reading or are you a wee bit sensitive NOBODY has even mentioned blaming Boeing who have been proven again that they make a bloody strong aircraft.
what have you been reading or are you a wee bit sensitive NOBODY has even mentioned blaming Boeing who have been proven again that they make a bloody strong aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hotel time zone
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was my first thought Val - If the fires go out for whatever reason, then they aren't going to respond to auto-throttle or manual commands...
but then again, I'm sure the AAIB would have mentioned the obvious loss of EGT on the trace if it was a flame-out, rather than this 'failure to respond to commands" - so it would appear they went into snooze mode at idle?
Yikes indeed, and mucho kudos to the crew.
but then again, I'm sure the AAIB would have mentioned the obvious loss of EGT on the trace if it was a flame-out, rather than this 'failure to respond to commands" - so it would appear they went into snooze mode at idle?
Yikes indeed, and mucho kudos to the crew.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondering about how much time they had?
If in fact the situation became known at 2.0 statute miles out and they averaged a ground speed of 150mph, they'd have had 48 seconds before making contact with Earth. So with the different variables (who knows what the real average speed was), it's likely that they had somewhere between 35 and 75 seconds.
Not exactly a whole lot of time to develop and execute a careful plan.
If in fact the situation became known at 2.0 statute miles out and they averaged a ground speed of 150mph, they'd have had 48 seconds before making contact with Earth. So with the different variables (who knows what the real average speed was), it's likely that they had somewhere between 35 and 75 seconds.
Not exactly a whole lot of time to develop and execute a careful plan.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA is apparently confident their crew have saved the day. I for one, would not stand in front of a huge audience of media and colleagues if I thought for one minute I may have overlooked or mishandled the situation. So, if there is a generic flaw with the aircraft I think something would have come out by now. I suspect fuel quality may be of importance here.
Question 1 - If both engines fail to respond to thrust levers then is fuel starvation to both engines a possibility?
Question 2 - Do BA 777 procedures insist that each engine is fed from separate fuel tanks for approach and landing, or would it be permitted to feed both engines from one tank?
Question 3 - What warnings and indications would the 777 automatically give if the fuel content in a fuel tank was approaching zero?
Today 19:17
Question 2 - Do BA 777 procedures insist that each engine is fed from separate fuel tanks for approach and landing, or would it be permitted to feed both engines from one tank?
Question 3 - What warnings and indications would the 777 automatically give if the fuel content in a fuel tank was approaching zero?
Today 19:17
2. according to boeing procedures, it is allowed to feed both engines from 1 tank during landing. crossfeed valves may be opened during landing. I don't know about BA procedures though.
3. when any wing tank reaches 2000 kgs or less a FUEL QTY LOW advisory emerges on EICAS. it has a checklist procedure. it calls for flaps 20 approach, all fuel pumps on and both crossfeeds open.
Now then. What is this accident going to do with the ETOPS status of the 777? Does this count as two IFSD (in flight shutdowns) in one day?
md80forum
Some of the maintenance is done in south Wales so it was probably a miner fault! 
Hat, coat.....
Quick guess before I start sifting through this thread: British operator, crew and maintenance, so it must be Boeing's fault.
Hat, coat.....
Anyone remember the “uncommanded rollbacks” the 535-E4 used to suffer? When power was required to stop a descent, the engine would remain in a sort of sub-idle. RR would investigate and declare the engine fault free.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I presume BA are looking after them ..."
Apparently not - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7196128.stm
(apologies if already posted - big trouble with little server)
(apologies if already posted - big trouble with little server)
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Can't remember
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that the AAIB have stated the Trents failed to respond. Are the power levers on a 777 PHYSICLY connected to the engines as in a conventional non fly-by-wire aircraft or is it inline with Airbus and just sends a signal to a computer that then decides if you really did want a power change or not ?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: This Sceptered Isle
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZeBedie wrote:
<<<Anyone remember the “uncommanded rollbacks” the 535-E4 used to suffer? When power was required to stop a descent, the engine would remain in a sort of sub-idle. RR would investigate and declare the engine fault free. >>>
Mmmm. IIRC the fuel controls on the Trent 895-17 are made by the same company that made those on the 535-E4. I wonder ...
P.
<<<Anyone remember the “uncommanded rollbacks” the 535-E4 used to suffer? When power was required to stop a descent, the engine would remain in a sort of sub-idle. RR would investigate and declare the engine fault free. >>>
Mmmm. IIRC the fuel controls on the Trent 895-17 are made by the same company that made those on the 535-E4. I wonder ...
P.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the Raj
Age: 69
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much information, so many possible causes, so much speculation. Come on guys, lets get it together, a captain and his crew make decisions together, it's called CRM, lets not allocate blame or otherwise to anyone until the facts are revealed. A good outcome to a bad situation, well done to all involved. Irrespective to the cause or outcome you did well and that should to be recognised.