BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Misd-agin -
Another question if you don't mind: could contaminated fuel nozzles be another possibility? The fuel was uploaded in China and a sustained period of engine idle on descent may have led to some build-up or coking. It has happened before. Just a thought.
Another question if you don't mind: could contaminated fuel nozzles be another possibility? The fuel was uploaded in China and a sustained period of engine idle on descent may have led to some build-up or coking. It has happened before. Just a thought.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teal,
Beyond my technical ability to respond. Planes have been flying into, and out of, China for decades.
To say it could been this, or could have been that, is pointless IMO.
It could have been a zillion things.
No one's brought up the chance that it could have been two expert rifle shots at the same time to both hit the fuel control units in the exact same spot.
No one's brought the chance that it could have been a meteor that broke up in space and two small pieces hit the engines in the exact same spot.
Patience. They're working on it.
Beyond my technical ability to respond. Planes have been flying into, and out of, China for decades.
To say it could been this, or could have been that, is pointless IMO.
It could have been a zillion things.
No one's brought up the chance that it could have been two expert rifle shots at the same time to both hit the fuel control units in the exact same spot.
No one's brought the chance that it could have been a meteor that broke up in space and two small pieces hit the engines in the exact same spot.
Patience. They're working on it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the engines were at idle at 600 feet, were they at idle at 1500 feet? 3000 feet?
Nobody said they were at idle at 600'. They would have been at approach power or close to it.
I know our company indicates that after a long idle descent, we should make sure the engines respond at 3000'. or be spooled up at 1500 feet.
now, we don't have trent engines...but are they so very different?
just wondering, have you ever heard of the above? you seem to think that it is very foreign.
That is very foreign to me. I currently fly B767's with both P&W, and GE engines. I used to fly F28's with Rolls Royce Spey's. I have never heard of anyone doing anything remotely like what you describe. On a piston engine sure, but not a turbine engine. On what engines do you use that procedure?
now if the engines were at normal approach setting at 1500', and they didn't respond (change) when throttles were advanced, there might have been a better chance of making the runway.
we all come from different backgrounds in flying...and we should try to understand the other fellow.
Nobody said they were at idle at 600'. They would have been at approach power or close to it.
I know our company indicates that after a long idle descent, we should make sure the engines respond at 3000'. or be spooled up at 1500 feet.
now, we don't have trent engines...but are they so very different?
just wondering, have you ever heard of the above? you seem to think that it is very foreign.
That is very foreign to me. I currently fly B767's with both P&W, and GE engines. I used to fly F28's with Rolls Royce Spey's. I have never heard of anyone doing anything remotely like what you describe. On a piston engine sure, but not a turbine engine. On what engines do you use that procedure?
now if the engines were at normal approach setting at 1500', and they didn't respond (change) when throttles were advanced, there might have been a better chance of making the runway.
we all come from different backgrounds in flying...and we should try to understand the other fellow.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been much discussion of the T7's APU and RAT and their respective abilities to provide power during a dual engine failure, but no one has brought up the ability of the two windmilling engines to provide limited power/hydraulics. I really have no sense of how effective the Trents might be in this situation (airspeed and given spooldown time, assuming a flameout), but my remembrance is that the donks on a 74' can provide sufficient power to operate the aircraft while windmilling in a four-out situation. It seems unlikely based on the initial reports that the APU could've autostarted fast enough to be useful, and the same seems true for the RAT (might've deployed but unlikely to have had time to spool up). Would the windmilling engines be effective in powering the essential systems for the 30 seconds or so between the loss of power and impact with the ground? I'm thinking this might also explain the pax reports of flickering lights, e.g. load shedding occurred as the engines were unable to sustain full bus load.
Guest
Posts: n/a
" OK, we know the 2 engines failed to respond simultaneously.
This is very strange, they are totally independent: only a couple of bits are shared, either fuel or throttle. "
The 2 FADECS for the engines are indeed independent but how about the autothrottle itself ? Is that perhaps a possible single point of failure ? Just asking.
Incidentally didn't early A320s have a software bug where the engines sometimes failed to respond to the throttles ? To fix it you had to close the throttles and then open them again.
Graham
This is very strange, they are totally independent: only a couple of bits are shared, either fuel or throttle. "
The 2 FADECS for the engines are indeed independent but how about the autothrottle itself ? Is that perhaps a possible single point of failure ? Just asking.
Incidentally didn't early A320s have a software bug where the engines sometimes failed to respond to the throttles ? To fix it you had to close the throttles and then open them again.
Graham
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no one has brought up the ability of the two windmilling engines to provide limited power/hydraulics.
The engines weren't windmilling. They were producing power. It is very normal for a jet aircraft to need an additional power adjustment as it approaches the runway. For some unknown reason the extra power called for was not able to be delivered.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engines weren't windmilling. They were producing power. It is very normal for a jet aircraft to need an additional power adjustment as it approaches the runway. For some unknown reason the extra power called for was not able to be delivered.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt a windmilling Trent would provide any electrical or hydraulic power.
But it is a three-shaft engine so it would depend on which shaft each accessory is attached to.
But it is a three-shaft engine so it would depend on which shaft each accessory is attached to.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Standby, Resyncing other FMC...
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do we learn from this?
Forget the "Stabilized Approach"!
Had they had 20+ knots above Vref they would have made it to the runway
"No, i'm not going around. I'm not unstabilized... I'm just preparing for non responsive engines"
Forget the "Stabilized Approach"!
Had they had 20+ knots above Vref they would have made it to the runway
"No, i'm not going around. I'm not unstabilized... I'm just preparing for non responsive engines"
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: tracy island
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sop vs press
most airline personal are not allowed to discuss any issues with the media,by virtue of their contracts ,in case of any incident/accident this is drilled home on every page of the EM. the engineer quoted after the incident altho well meaning is actually on dangerous territory.
the press have a job to do- so leave the speculation to them and bite the bullet when it comes to reported inaccuracies,the story is off the main headlines now and the real business of finding out what went wrong can start
the press have a job to do- so leave the speculation to them and bite the bullet when it comes to reported inaccuracies,the story is off the main headlines now and the real business of finding out what went wrong can start
Last edited by acmi48; 19th Jan 2008 at 05:14. Reason: spelling
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossfeed?
(I'm 30 years non-current, so bin this if totally irrelevant)
Engines vs fuel
Way back in the distant past of 707s,747s etc,SOP was to feed tank-to-engine for T/O and APP, Crossfeed was only used for "non-critical" parts of the flight. Is this still so?
I'd feel far more likely to suspect some engine condition triggered by simultaneous throttle movement than the simultaneous problem condition occurring on both tanks (ice,water,whatever) on opposite sides of the wing.
Is it still tank-to-engine during approach these days?
Engines vs fuel
Way back in the distant past of 707s,747s etc,SOP was to feed tank-to-engine for T/O and APP, Crossfeed was only used for "non-critical" parts of the flight. Is this still so?
I'd feel far more likely to suspect some engine condition triggered by simultaneous throttle movement than the simultaneous problem condition occurring on both tanks (ice,water,whatever) on opposite sides of the wing.
Is it still tank-to-engine during approach these days?
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft didn't want to die.
Yes The aircraft didn't want to die a horrible screaming death!.
Just wondering how much the "landing" was due to the pilots and how much was done by the computers. The 777 is after all fly by wire.
The final report will be very interesting to read. What did the aircraft systems do automatically in response to the lack of the command to the engines to increase power.
Really happy no one was seriously injured and the aircraft can be examined in depth. This will be a real life test flight.
Just wondering how much the "landing" was due to the pilots and how much was done by the computers. The 777 is after all fly by wire.
The final report will be very interesting to read. What did the aircraft systems do automatically in response to the lack of the command to the engines to increase power.
Really happy no one was seriously injured and the aircraft can be examined in depth. This will be a real life test flight.
After so long without a 777 hull loss i'm sure Boeing is going to be very interesting to see how their 'latest' held together, must say under the impact it didn't break in any of the usual 'joins' used in manfacture and stayed pretty well intact. I'm sure the 'structure' engineer is sleeping a little sounder than the electrical one!
Guest
Posts: n/a
" Certain types of engine icing might lead to an unresponsive engine, and this could affect both simultaneously; or with decreased efficiency on one, the other engine struggles which might make it more susceptible to the effects of ice, so shortly after both are affected.
Although most engines are anti-iced, some of the big fans rely on fan-ice shedding (centrifugal action) at higher rpm. "
I don't see anyone other than you suggesting that the engines themselves were 'iced up' !
Although most engines are anti-iced, some of the big fans rely on fan-ice shedding (centrifugal action) at higher rpm. "
I don't see anyone other than you suggesting that the engines themselves were 'iced up' !
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us all give thanks and praise, not only to the boys and girls on the aircraft, but also to those who train and maintain their standards. In a time of great cost-cutting and reduction in standards, it is most reassuring to know that when the sh!t hits the fan, the professionalism and training of the crew came to the fore. Well done to all concerned and good luck. 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Berkeley
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all I've piloted is hang gliders, so just asking the pilots ....
Having started flying hang gliders in 1978, just at the end of the 'full luff dive' era when they'd started building them with a bit of an airfoil and dive recovery instead of loose flapping Rogallo fabric, a lot of us learned a great deal from other pilots' stories, the "there I was, though I was gonna die" recitals -- honesty being the core of these knowing some bit might save another pilot's life another day.
Only question I feel might be askable at this point is -- for those of you who fly real airplanes -- will you approach your flying any differently knowing no more than you know now, that there have been several of these power failure events recently, for whatever reason?
They told me 'altitude, airspeed, and ideas' -- two out of three ain't bad.
So I'm wondering if knowing this has happened to several aircraft is going to change y'all's ....er ... approach, or flying, in any way?
Got anything y'all care to say about how you'll fly, with just this bit of knowledge that this can happen? Is it news enough to make any difference, before we know specifics, just to say, this too can happen?
Only question I feel might be askable at this point is -- for those of you who fly real airplanes -- will you approach your flying any differently knowing no more than you know now, that there have been several of these power failure events recently, for whatever reason?
They told me 'altitude, airspeed, and ideas' -- two out of three ain't bad.
So I'm wondering if knowing this has happened to several aircraft is going to change y'all's ....er ... approach, or flying, in any way?
Got anything y'all care to say about how you'll fly, with just this bit of knowledge that this can happen? Is it news enough to make any difference, before we know specifics, just to say, this too can happen?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ext332
I've been thinking about this event over the last few days......
One question, does anyone else share my unease about heaping praise on the crew until the full results are in, I seem to remember something similar regarding Kegworth for the first three days after that incident.
I wonder if there is any hint at a late stabilisation and subsequent slow spool-up after 500 ft
Might explain why Boeing haven't grounded the fleet.
Hope I'm wrong
ExT
One question, does anyone else share my unease about heaping praise on the crew until the full results are in, I seem to remember something similar regarding Kegworth for the first three days after that incident.
I wonder if there is any hint at a late stabilisation and subsequent slow spool-up after 500 ft
Might explain why Boeing haven't grounded the fleet.
Hope I'm wrong
ExT
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering how much the "landing" was due to the pilots and how much was done by the computers. The 777 is after all fly by wire.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't need to as the RAT would deploy for the loss of either. I have on a few occasions, observed hydraulic pressure indication from a windmilling RB211
Guest
Posts: n/a
" I believe that the engines problems may have been caused by electomagnetic interference caused by electrical jamming of the electrical components of the engine controls. Perhaps a strong signal emanating from a device on the ground. "
Al Qaeda ? (I'm not being terrribly serious but wondering if that's what you meant).
Seriously I don't think that's very likely. Not IMPOSSIBLE I dare say, just very very unlikely.
Al Qaeda ? (I'm not being terrribly serious but wondering if that's what you meant).
Seriously I don't think that's very likely. Not IMPOSSIBLE I dare say, just very very unlikely.