BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik101
I agree with you, but as I am sure you are aware, although the Moderators detest speculation from 'timewasters' et al, if that speculation 'states' that the crew were heroic and averted a disaster, it is accepted.
I personally doubt it was aircrew error, but at the same time, I doubt very much whether the flight crew had much input to the outcome. People on these forums (the professionals), decry newspapers for writing the usual "fought heroically with the controls, narrowly avoiding a nunnery/school/orphanage" whenever there is an incident, but then sit back and do it themselves on this forum!
Some of the 'professionals' who post on here speculate as much as the media
I agree with you, but as I am sure you are aware, although the Moderators detest speculation from 'timewasters' et al, if that speculation 'states' that the crew were heroic and averted a disaster, it is accepted.
I personally doubt it was aircrew error, but at the same time, I doubt very much whether the flight crew had much input to the outcome. People on these forums (the professionals), decry newspapers for writing the usual "fought heroically with the controls, narrowly avoiding a nunnery/school/orphanage" whenever there is an incident, but then sit back and do it themselves on this forum!
Some of the 'professionals' who post on here speculate as much as the media
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: obviously NOT in the same kindergarten playground as the management!
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, a huge number of posts causing the server to crash almost as badly as the subject. The themes seem to be:
1. “I’m only SLF but it seems to me……”
2. “What about the digital whatsit thingummyjig which is on the doolally whosit which COULD have failed….”
3. “I’m a fully qualified 777 capt and we should not be commenting on this until the AAIB report is in”
4. “Stop the weenies commenting. Wait for the report. Full praise to the crew”
5. “Fuel”
6. ”Crew error”
7.“RR must be worried”
8. “The mods are not happy”
For new viewers this represents the previous 365 pages……now read on….!
PS. Don’t speculate, wait for the report, well done the crew (flight deck and cabin)! {No 4}
1. “I’m only SLF but it seems to me……”
2. “What about the digital whatsit thingummyjig which is on the doolally whosit which COULD have failed….”
3. “I’m a fully qualified 777 capt and we should not be commenting on this until the AAIB report is in”
4. “Stop the weenies commenting. Wait for the report. Full praise to the crew”
5. “Fuel”
6. ”Crew error”
7.“RR must be worried”
8. “The mods are not happy”
For new viewers this represents the previous 365 pages……now read on….!
PS. Don’t speculate, wait for the report, well done the crew (flight deck and cabin)! {No 4}
rubik101
I suspect you don't fly.
The flight crew were way more than just passengers. The only reason all on board survived is that the aircraft reached the ground wings level. If you want to see what happens when the wings aren't level at touchdown watch the video of the hijacked Ethiopian 767 that ditches.
From finding out they had no thrust the handling pilot used all the knietic and potential energy they had to reach the field, maintaining good forward speed until well into ground effect whilst not allowing the aircraft to stall until very very close to terra firms (if indeed it stalled at all). Had a wing been allowed to drop (ie stall due to low speed) even at 100ft the results would have been very different.
Awesome job well done
LD
I suspect you don't fly.
The flight crew were way more than just passengers. The only reason all on board survived is that the aircraft reached the ground wings level. If you want to see what happens when the wings aren't level at touchdown watch the video of the hijacked Ethiopian 767 that ditches.
From finding out they had no thrust the handling pilot used all the knietic and potential energy they had to reach the field, maintaining good forward speed until well into ground effect whilst not allowing the aircraft to stall until very very close to terra firms (if indeed it stalled at all). Had a wing been allowed to drop (ie stall due to low speed) even at 100ft the results would have been very different.
Awesome job well done
LD
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can relax now as I see in the Mail that the Captain's wife is negotiating with Max Clifford to sell the Captain's story to the Media!
I would hope that was not a joint family decision?
Where is that old 'stiff upper lip' going to?
I would hope that was not a joint family decision?
Where is that old 'stiff upper lip' going to?
Well, if you're too lazy to read the whole AAIB initial report, here's the most salient part of it:
So can we please put all speculations about this being another Kegworth to rest, pleeeeeease.
Also anyone who suggests that approach should be stabilized by 1000 AGL, with power and speed IAW final approach settings, or that you need engine out of approach idle to fly 3° glidepath, has not actually flown into Heathrow, or for that matter any other major European airport for at least last seven years (and probably more). Due to noise abaitment and traffic sequencing requirements, approaches at LHR are flown with intermediate flaps, gear retracted and 160 kt untill four DME. At 4 miles out, gear goes down, flaps goes towards landing setting and as you need to decelarete towards Vapp, engines go to flight idle. Depending on your weight and prevailing wind, you'll be fully established (speed, power, config) between 900 and 500 ft AGL and it seems that this was the point where first signs of trouble became apparent. Less than a minute later, airplane hit the dirt. Congrats to the crew, whatever they did, they've kept the airplane upright untill the ground contact and that's not a small thing.
Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally until the aircraft was established on late finals for Runway 27L. At approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down, the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond. Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond. The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface.
Also anyone who suggests that approach should be stabilized by 1000 AGL, with power and speed IAW final approach settings, or that you need engine out of approach idle to fly 3° glidepath, has not actually flown into Heathrow, or for that matter any other major European airport for at least last seven years (and probably more). Due to noise abaitment and traffic sequencing requirements, approaches at LHR are flown with intermediate flaps, gear retracted and 160 kt untill four DME. At 4 miles out, gear goes down, flaps goes towards landing setting and as you need to decelarete towards Vapp, engines go to flight idle. Depending on your weight and prevailing wind, you'll be fully established (speed, power, config) between 900 and 500 ft AGL and it seems that this was the point where first signs of trouble became apparent. Less than a minute later, airplane hit the dirt. Congrats to the crew, whatever they did, they've kept the airplane upright untill the ground contact and that's not a small thing.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel
...contaminated fuel, maybe just water left: this could explain why the ultrasonic sensors signalled sufficient fuel in tank?
I cannot think of anything else for now.
A lesson: all runways should be like 27Left from now on. This incident could happen again. Same incident on 27 right at EGLL and the 777 would have found the VS Car Park. Slightly harder than the wet grass. RESA needed.
Let's move these car parks.
Well done to the crew, and maybe to the 777 autolanding system(!). Just kidding.
I cannot think of anything else for now.
A lesson: all runways should be like 27Left from now on. This incident could happen again. Same incident on 27 right at EGLL and the 777 would have found the VS Car Park. Slightly harder than the wet grass. RESA needed.
Let's move these car parks.
Well done to the crew, and maybe to the 777 autolanding system(!). Just kidding.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somehwere on the planet
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those who suggested an engine failure and the crew shutting down the wrong engine.
First the B777 EICAS and company SOP's makes that pretty difficult, second no proffesional airline crew is going to do anything with an engine 600' above the ground on short final except continue the approach and deal with it on the ground.
For anyone suggesting that the crew had time to transfer control, troubleshoot the issue or generally do anything other than fly the aircraft obviously doesn't appreciate just how little time you'd have to recognize and respond to an abnormal situation that close to ground. The crew did exactly what they should have in that situation, jam the thrust forward, say WTF? and maintain level wings and do whatever you can to make the field without stalling the aircraft and making it worse.
Lastly they are not going to ground the worldwide fleet of B777's that have completed millions of trouble free hours for an incident that they don't even know the cause of yet. Should it be proven to be an aircraft/engine/software issue then i'm sure we'll see the AD come out fairly quickly.
In the meantime lets let the investigation team do their jobs and figure out what happened. Best thing you can do in the meantime is close your mouth and not make yourself look any stupider by coming up with outrageous theories on a subject many of you apparently know little about.
First the B777 EICAS and company SOP's makes that pretty difficult, second no proffesional airline crew is going to do anything with an engine 600' above the ground on short final except continue the approach and deal with it on the ground.
For anyone suggesting that the crew had time to transfer control, troubleshoot the issue or generally do anything other than fly the aircraft obviously doesn't appreciate just how little time you'd have to recognize and respond to an abnormal situation that close to ground. The crew did exactly what they should have in that situation, jam the thrust forward, say WTF? and maintain level wings and do whatever you can to make the field without stalling the aircraft and making it worse.
Lastly they are not going to ground the worldwide fleet of B777's that have completed millions of trouble free hours for an incident that they don't even know the cause of yet. Should it be proven to be an aircraft/engine/software issue then i'm sure we'll see the AD come out fairly quickly.
In the meantime lets let the investigation team do their jobs and figure out what happened. Best thing you can do in the meantime is close your mouth and not make yourself look any stupider by coming up with outrageous theories on a subject many of you apparently know little about.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sandbank
It's been a while since I retired from BA but it used to be that if the FO is handling the aircraft (i.e. his sector) he will act as PIC throughout the whole flight (PICUS); Pilot In Command Under Supervision.
The Captain does indeed have every right to assume control of the aeroplane and would do so if needs be. In an incident such as this, it's my guess that it would be mighty tempting for the Captain to take over the controls; however, the ability of the FO is usually known and unless he's making a real mess of things it's best to leave him handling the aeroplane... it takes a significant period to hand-over and adjust yourself to how the aircraft is responding, so it might actually make things worse when within the final stage of the approach to assume control.
This would always be a 'command' decision. Command comes with both training and experience and you cannot always put everything into neat little boxes; therefore, the 'commander' has a huge responsibilty in making those decisions. I believe that in this particular scenario that we will discover that the FO in question isn't that far from achieving his own command; which the Captain would have known and taken into considderation at the time... that's what makes a good commander!
TCF
It's been a while since I retired from BA but it used to be that if the FO is handling the aircraft (i.e. his sector) he will act as PIC throughout the whole flight (PICUS); Pilot In Command Under Supervision.
The Captain does indeed have every right to assume control of the aeroplane and would do so if needs be. In an incident such as this, it's my guess that it would be mighty tempting for the Captain to take over the controls; however, the ability of the FO is usually known and unless he's making a real mess of things it's best to leave him handling the aeroplane... it takes a significant period to hand-over and adjust yourself to how the aircraft is responding, so it might actually make things worse when within the final stage of the approach to assume control.
This would always be a 'command' decision. Command comes with both training and experience and you cannot always put everything into neat little boxes; therefore, the 'commander' has a huge responsibilty in making those decisions. I believe that in this particular scenario that we will discover that the FO in question isn't that far from achieving his own command; which the Captain would have known and taken into considderation at the time... that's what makes a good commander!
TCF
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane, Oz
Age: 82
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a far too long ex-A320 P1, haven't had time to read all 33 pages (relaxing retirement? forget the idea), and really, should not comment, but a couple of questions nag at 3am.
This event recalls the fuel gauge malfunction double engine flameout in the 767 into the disused WW2 strip in Canada some years back, where both flight crew were current glider rated. They pulled off the classic out-landing beautifully, with only a bent nose oleo in the freshly dug ditch across the strip. BUT, their double failure was at height. (Cruise height rings a faint bell. Shear bluuddy lookshury.)
Q. Anyone know if these 777 lads are glider rated, or current light A/c instructors?
Reason I ask is that the reported low approach & hi alpha at touch so remind me of my ancient past, when, doing first practice forced landings onto home strip, I misjudged, and would have obviously worn the fence from an approx 80-100' undershoot. Boss said 'go round' but I said 'OK. But what if this was a real situation? What could I do?' He said 'mine' lowered the nose to gain maybe 5-6 kts from about 300', sat it (26' span Victa) in ground effect, & we watched as the speed very slowly bled off. He eased it up over the (sheep) fence and we dropped like a bag of the proverbial on the other side.
Not what I would have ever demonstrated when I got to instruct, but he made a point I never forgot, and which I at least passed on verbally.
When I went gliding, the hairy late afternoon 'I >will< get homer's' at my (flat land) club would tuck down into ground effect quite a way out, and proceed to make it.
This lad's approach seems a fairly similar example of such a technique. Comments?
The reason for the event will certainly surface, but some time in the future.
Let's be patient and kind, and especially congratulate the cabin crew on a fine following_of_procedures. Fire-ies also spot on. Excellent work all round. T.G.
This event recalls the fuel gauge malfunction double engine flameout in the 767 into the disused WW2 strip in Canada some years back, where both flight crew were current glider rated. They pulled off the classic out-landing beautifully, with only a bent nose oleo in the freshly dug ditch across the strip. BUT, their double failure was at height. (Cruise height rings a faint bell. Shear bluuddy lookshury.)
Q. Anyone know if these 777 lads are glider rated, or current light A/c instructors?
Reason I ask is that the reported low approach & hi alpha at touch so remind me of my ancient past, when, doing first practice forced landings onto home strip, I misjudged, and would have obviously worn the fence from an approx 80-100' undershoot. Boss said 'go round' but I said 'OK. But what if this was a real situation? What could I do?' He said 'mine' lowered the nose to gain maybe 5-6 kts from about 300', sat it (26' span Victa) in ground effect, & we watched as the speed very slowly bled off. He eased it up over the (sheep) fence and we dropped like a bag of the proverbial on the other side.
Not what I would have ever demonstrated when I got to instruct, but he made a point I never forgot, and which I at least passed on verbally.
When I went gliding, the hairy late afternoon 'I >will< get homer's' at my (flat land) club would tuck down into ground effect quite a way out, and proceed to make it.
This lad's approach seems a fairly similar example of such a technique. Comments?
The reason for the event will certainly surface, but some time in the future.
Let's be patient and kind, and especially congratulate the cabin crew on a fine following_of_procedures. Fire-ies also spot on. Excellent work all round. T.G.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an AD issued for 777 FADEC problems , albeit with the GE90 power plant. Bears some resemblance to the subject.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...d!OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...d!OpenDocument
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: House
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lhr 777
Sorry Clandestino that is not the case, whilst you may be gear up at 4nm due' noise abatement' big company regs require stabilised approach at 1000 feet AAL. Thats flap 30, landing checks done and gear locked with power stabilised. You cannot fly the profile you claim on a 777, it won't match company stabilisation criteria.
For the 777 which takes 400 feet to select gear down to locked on a 3 degree approach, and then 400 feet to go from flap 20 to flap 30, you need 800 feet minimum. You should not select flap 30 with gear still travelling as you get a config warning. So 2000 feet AAL is the BA (and other) recommended latest selection of gear and 1500 feet AAL latest flap 30 selection. Vref30 will be sigificantly below 160 kts, requiring power down and time to stabilise and then spool up for the 1000ft AAL gate.
777 autothrottle responds slowly to speed reduction commands but more quickly to speed up commands. If it needs 160kts to 4 nm, you either bust the 1000ft stabilisation point or you anticipate the speed reduction by a mile or so to achieve a decent satbilisation at 1000 ft AAL. Sesma will trigger unstable approaches and you will be called in.....
For the 777 which takes 400 feet to select gear down to locked on a 3 degree approach, and then 400 feet to go from flap 20 to flap 30, you need 800 feet minimum. You should not select flap 30 with gear still travelling as you get a config warning. So 2000 feet AAL is the BA (and other) recommended latest selection of gear and 1500 feet AAL latest flap 30 selection. Vref30 will be sigificantly below 160 kts, requiring power down and time to stabilise and then spool up for the 1000ft AAL gate.
777 autothrottle responds slowly to speed reduction commands but more quickly to speed up commands. If it needs 160kts to 4 nm, you either bust the 1000ft stabilisation point or you anticipate the speed reduction by a mile or so to achieve a decent satbilisation at 1000 ft AAL. Sesma will trigger unstable approaches and you will be called in.....
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company SOP is to fly 160 knots to 4 miles at all airports, not just Heathrow, and then reduce thrust to flight idle in order to reduce speed below the full flap limiting speed, take full flap, then increase thrust to maintain the calculated approach speed (an increment on reference landing speed) minus 5 and plus 10 knots. This is to be stabilised at 1000 feet agl in instrument met conditions or 500 radio altimeter in visual met conditions.
So in my own operations it's quite normal to be increasing thrust to maintain that approach speed at 2 miles and if I found that there was nothing there at that point I would consider it highly unlikely that I would make the runway in most cases. And many other runways I land on do not have the clear undershoot area available that 27L at Heathrow does.
Gets you thinking about the what ifs doesn't it?! The sooner the experts at the AAIB can figure out why engine thrust didn't increase when demanded the better. But who knows, maybe they'll never know. Maybe the system of computers and wiring between those thrust levers and the engines will function perfectly when they test them. It's happened many times before with electrical systems, just have a look at the AAIB report released this week on the BA Airbus 319 over London in 2005. How many times have you powered something off and on to clear a fault?
So in my own operations it's quite normal to be increasing thrust to maintain that approach speed at 2 miles and if I found that there was nothing there at that point I would consider it highly unlikely that I would make the runway in most cases. And many other runways I land on do not have the clear undershoot area available that 27L at Heathrow does.
Gets you thinking about the what ifs doesn't it?! The sooner the experts at the AAIB can figure out why engine thrust didn't increase when demanded the better. But who knows, maybe they'll never know. Maybe the system of computers and wiring between those thrust levers and the engines will function perfectly when they test them. It's happened many times before with electrical systems, just have a look at the AAIB report released this week on the BA Airbus 319 over London in 2005. How many times have you powered something off and on to clear a fault?
Last edited by TDK mk2; 19th Jan 2008 at 16:03.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Up front
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What can we learn from this immediately? Flying the aircraft is still important....Looking out the most important instrument on the a/c (the window) is stil important. Owners, managers, trainers take note! Well done guys...Well done also to the couple of relevant posts...to the rest 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JenCluse
This lad's approach seems a fairly similar example of such a technique [gliding in ground effect]. Comments?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: FL410
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howard Hughes
your observations regarding the speed of the PR department are right on.
I hope the crew didn't screw up, I really do. But if so many demand we wait for the AAIB report instead of speculating, we must use the same discipline before eliminating human error.
I hope the crew didn't screw up, I really do. But if so many demand we wait for the AAIB report instead of speculating, we must use the same discipline before eliminating human error.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Burkill is understood to have two children from a previous marriage.
Last night, it emerged Mrs Burkill 34, who met her husband while she was a long-haul air hostess with BA had contacted publicist Max Clifford with plans to sell her husband's story. The publicist was understood to be in negotiations with Sunday newspapers.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Duckberg
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if Boeing will pay to patch her up as opposed to writing her off, as with the QF 747 in BKK?