BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transcribed the following from Jay Leno's Friday night monologue and closed caption: Not my errors.
And yesterday they had a big crash landing in London with a 747, lucky nobody was killed but, you know I heard a guy from the FDA say that's not good enough for us, we're not gonna rest until we've reached our goal of 0 plane crashes, that's our goal 0 plane crashes, and everybody applauds......
Well of course 0 is the goal.
What are you gonna say ?? We just want 1 big crash a year, that's all we want, give us 1 huge crash and were fine.
.
And yesterday they had a big crash landing in London with a 747, lucky nobody was killed but, you know I heard a guy from the FDA say that's not good enough for us, we're not gonna rest until we've reached our goal of 0 plane crashes, that's our goal 0 plane crashes, and everybody applauds......
Well of course 0 is the goal.
What are you gonna say ?? We just want 1 big crash a year, that's all we want, give us 1 huge crash and were fine.
.
Last edited by alph2z; 19th Jan 2008 at 08:08.
Guest
Posts: n/a
" "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."
The A/T really isn't an issue here. All the 777 Autothrottle does is physically move the thrust levers in the cockpit using little electric motors. The thrust levers then indepedently send electric (thrust lever angle position) signals directly to the EEC's (or "FADEC's" as you call them). As stated before, the pilots manually advanced the throttles with the same effect (none).
Hope this makes sense "
Yes that makes perfect sense (I understand what you say exactly) but that then means TWO independent engines with independent FADEC controllers and independent power sources failed to respond correctly simultaneously.
That's DEEPLY worrying.
So the A/T's control over the thrust levers is purely mechanical ONLY ? Like the cruise control in some cars where it physically 'presses the accelerator' for you.
The A/T really isn't an issue here. All the 777 Autothrottle does is physically move the thrust levers in the cockpit using little electric motors. The thrust levers then indepedently send electric (thrust lever angle position) signals directly to the EEC's (or "FADEC's" as you call them). As stated before, the pilots manually advanced the throttles with the same effect (none).
Hope this makes sense "
Yes that makes perfect sense (I understand what you say exactly) but that then means TWO independent engines with independent FADEC controllers and independent power sources failed to respond correctly simultaneously.
That's DEEPLY worrying.
So the A/T's control over the thrust levers is purely mechanical ONLY ? Like the cruise control in some cars where it physically 'presses the accelerator' for you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
" Apologies for yet another bonehead question from the SLF.
We are continually told to turn off mobile phones and laptops on landing as these can effect the aircraft systems. "
More to the point, it affects the profitability of existing in-flight telephones.
The idea that cellphones interfere with the avionics is AFAIK totally unproven. However it's never been totally proven that they couldn't either.
However plans to introduce 'approved' systems for inflight cellphone use suggest that it's largely not a real concern.
We are continually told to turn off mobile phones and laptops on landing as these can effect the aircraft systems. "
More to the point, it affects the profitability of existing in-flight telephones.
The idea that cellphones interfere with the avionics is AFAIK totally unproven. However it's never been totally proven that they couldn't either.
However plans to introduce 'approved' systems for inflight cellphone use suggest that it's largely not a real concern.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what-
Despite the possibility of crew error (they are a team after all), design fault,build fault, operational issues, training error or maintenance issues what the pilots did was just what good ole' Bob Hoover said-
They flew her all the way into the crash and walked away from it. Thats great skill.
That Boeing lump sure is strong!
Despite the possibility of crew error (they are a team after all), design fault,build fault, operational issues, training error or maintenance issues what the pilots did was just what good ole' Bob Hoover said-
They flew her all the way into the crash and walked away from it. Thats great skill.
That Boeing lump sure is strong!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who to blame?
Good thinking! If they didn't monitor the approach and sloppy respond to disconnect and execute manual go-around,well time will tell!2.Total power loss due to birdstrikes at final,may be a neutral way of closing the case,but if they really had engine computer problems..and were unable to disconnect and execute a manual go-around.....well
BA and Boeing would come out with a statment of maybe CAT1 manual landings,but as that has not happen yet makes you think that maybe there was a technical error followed by humanerror.(like always)
You're wasting bandwidth with all that crap!
I realise the flight crew must have been busy in the last few moments of the approach,but if they were 'expecting' a crash landing perhaps it would have been a good idea to suggest the pax get in the brace position.By all accounts the pax thought it was a normal bumpy landing.
As someone who is due to fly today on a B777 (not BA) I am interested in the following:
The fact that the crew have been publicly exposed to the media would indicate that there is no question of operator error as an immediate cause of this accident. This means that, presumably, a system failure is still a possibility. In this case I am wondering why B777s are still being permitted to fly whilst there is any doubt as to the actual cause.
The fact that the crew have been publicly exposed to the media would indicate that there is no question of operator error as an immediate cause of this accident. This means that, presumably, a system failure is still a possibility. In this case I am wondering why B777s are still being permitted to fly whilst there is any doubt as to the actual cause.
There are inevitable commercial aspects: there is no such thing as complete safety, only a probability of success (or failure); grounding every 777 in the world (I believe 6-700 are flying now) might not produce a justifiable increase in flight safety, just major inconvenience and financial loss to airlines and their customers.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sympathise with those posting how irritated they are by the non-technical speculating on these message boards; however to some extent it is an easy way for us to learn how the systems operate. For me, the 'need to know' philosophy for new aircraft types is inadequate and I have spent hours talking to engineers for explanations.
The real irritation for me though are the posts by journalists notably from the tabloids who blatantly advertise their publications on here with no interest in knowing the truth as that is not sufficiently news-worthy. What this incident has highlighted is how unreliable are most journalists, since exaggeration is preferable to delaying saying anything until true facts are known. That is different from pilots wanting clues on what happened to expand their knowledge of an incident which most of us have never had to face YET!
The real irritation for me though are the posts by journalists notably from the tabloids who blatantly advertise their publications on here with no interest in knowing the truth as that is not sufficiently news-worthy. What this incident has highlighted is how unreliable are most journalists, since exaggeration is preferable to delaying saying anything until true facts are known. That is different from pilots wanting clues on what happened to expand their knowledge of an incident which most of us have never had to face YET!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
listria
I am sure your suggestion seems logical to you. But I would suggest that any deviation in attention by the flight crew from the absolute priority in getting the aircraft on the ground might have resulted in the brace position being necessary because they could have missed something vital to achieve their desire of a 'safe' arrival?
I am sure your suggestion seems logical to you. But I would suggest that any deviation in attention by the flight crew from the absolute priority in getting the aircraft on the ground might have resulted in the brace position being necessary because they could have missed something vital to achieve their desire of a 'safe' arrival?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just another little snippet.
Reading the AAIB press-release, I noticed they mentioned they also have the data from the Quick Access Recorder.
Is this fitted to ALL BA planes ? I know they started using them on the Trident way back. What data does it record ?
Reading the AAIB press-release, I noticed they mentioned they also have the data from the Quick Access Recorder.
Is this fitted to ALL BA planes ? I know they started using them on the Trident way back. What data does it record ?
Champagne anyone...?
Probably not much time, lots to do before that - remember the old adage:
Aviate, Ruminate, Cogitate, Altercate, Navigate, Deliberate, Anticipate, Prestidigitate, Communicate, Celebrate, Defenestrate.
I think thats how it goes.
Best theory I've heard so far is that ECM on the Prime Minister's motorcade interfered with the aircraft systems. I wonder though, is all this speculation just so that when the cause is revealed someone can say "I told you so!"?
Keep up the good work
Aviate, Ruminate, Cogitate, Altercate, Navigate, Deliberate, Anticipate, Prestidigitate, Communicate, Celebrate, Defenestrate.
I think thats how it goes.
Best theory I've heard so far is that ECM on the Prime Minister's motorcade interfered with the aircraft systems. I wonder though, is all this speculation just so that when the cause is revealed someone can say "I told you so!"?
Keep up the good work
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are inevitable commercial aspects: there is no such thing as complete safety, only a probability of success (or failure); grounding every 777 in the world (I believe 6-700 are flying now) might not produce a justifiable increase in flight safety, just major inconvenience and financial loss to airlines and their customers.
pasoundman
The idea that cellphones interfere with the avionics is AFAIK totally unproven. However it's never been totally proven that they couldn't either.
The idea that cellphones interfere with the avionics is AFAIK totally unproven. However it's never been totally proven that they couldn't either.
However plans to introduce 'approved' systems for inflight cellphone use suggest that it's largely not a real concern.
Apologies for the thread drift and I like many out there eagerly await the outcome of the investigation.
Seems reasonable Manrow,it's impossible to put oneself in those guys position,no wonder the copilot looked so shocked at the press conference-they are probably stating to feel the effects of the high stress just about now-concentration must have been immense.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be fuel contamination
China has a $2,000,000,0000 a year industry making fakes. Lest you think this is just the odd Rolex or Gucci bag for a laugh the China PLC inventory includes millions of fake parts not caring one whit how many people are killed thereby. More sinister is the the fake pharmaceuticals which often are not simply benign white chalk pills but random chemicals found out back in the garage, once again not caring one whit who or how many die.
In the case at hand the only other remotely possible explanations are a multiple bird strike of epic proportions or fuel exhaustion. Give credence to the former if you like, to the latter, well, you will need a lower opinion of BA aircrew than is common.
No, someone will have passed off a few million litres of doctored diesel fuel as jet fuel. This fake fuel of course is not tested for fuel freezing. Fuel freezing will then have occurred during the lengthy flight from China (not ice formation, but wax components of the fuel reverting to solid) and this slurry sank to the bottom of the tanks. On final with perhaps 4 tons or so sloshing around in near-as-empty tanks this fuel willl have been ingested.
Eh Voila
Have some faith in your hardware is what 10,000 hours on the 777 has taught me. There will be human skulduggery at root here somewhere.
In the case at hand the only other remotely possible explanations are a multiple bird strike of epic proportions or fuel exhaustion. Give credence to the former if you like, to the latter, well, you will need a lower opinion of BA aircrew than is common.
No, someone will have passed off a few million litres of doctored diesel fuel as jet fuel. This fake fuel of course is not tested for fuel freezing. Fuel freezing will then have occurred during the lengthy flight from China (not ice formation, but wax components of the fuel reverting to solid) and this slurry sank to the bottom of the tanks. On final with perhaps 4 tons or so sloshing around in near-as-empty tanks this fuel willl have been ingested.
Eh Voila
Have some faith in your hardware is what 10,000 hours on the 777 has taught me. There will be human skulduggery at root here somewhere.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things to ponder...
Firstly, my apologies if this has already been covered.
To those not familiar with the 777, forget about previous Boeing product, this machine is vastly different in the way achieves the 'end result'.
From the pax reports i've seen, not one has said "the lights went out, then we hit the ground"....
Surely if there was an electrical system failure the cabin lighting would be one of the first things shed? The Pax notice that kind of thing...
The APU door is indeed open, but this doesn't mean it was running...
The RAT is shown still attached to the aircraft, surely if it had been deployed it would have been ripped clear of the fuselage on contact with the ground? The U/C was...
I know the multiple sources of electrical power availabe on the 777, Understand FADEC, AIMS and ELMS. Something is very strange here we are missing something, can't wait to hear the outcome
The fact that the 777 fleet is not grounded speaks volumes. I can't help but come back to a fuel related issue. Possibly there was more going on in flight than we know. Maybe the hero's might not be such in a few weeks time??? No offence intended to the pilots reading this.
To those not familiar with the 777, forget about previous Boeing product, this machine is vastly different in the way achieves the 'end result'.
From the pax reports i've seen, not one has said "the lights went out, then we hit the ground"....
Surely if there was an electrical system failure the cabin lighting would be one of the first things shed? The Pax notice that kind of thing...
The APU door is indeed open, but this doesn't mean it was running...
The RAT is shown still attached to the aircraft, surely if it had been deployed it would have been ripped clear of the fuselage on contact with the ground? The U/C was...
I know the multiple sources of electrical power availabe on the 777, Understand FADEC, AIMS and ELMS. Something is very strange here we are missing something, can't wait to hear the outcome
The fact that the 777 fleet is not grounded speaks volumes. I can't help but come back to a fuel related issue. Possibly there was more going on in flight than we know. Maybe the hero's might not be such in a few weeks time??? No offence intended to the pilots reading this.