BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: KLAX
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In speculating from the peanut gallery, and also with classic B-742 experience, the engines did not spool up when commanded during approach. That statement appears to be fact.
In the B-742, that may point to flight idle not being activated (enabled with flap selection). Does the B-777 have such a system? I suspect that it has.
In the B-742, that may point to flight idle not being activated (enabled with flap selection). Does the B-777 have such a system? I suspect that it has.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What 'reliable witness' said that the engines had spooled up to Take-Off Thrust? And... who says that the RAT can be heard above all of that aerodynamic din? Absolute nonesense!
For heavens sake, this is getting like a circus ring
For heavens sake, this is getting like a circus ring
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Age: 78
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EMI from cabin
Link to B737-800 NASA incident Sep 05 provides excellent evidence of a laptop wireless connection causing false RAs on the TCAS.
We are all aware of the requirement to turn off electronic equipment in the cabin for take-off and landing, but not in the cruise. Do we therefore regard the chance of a false RA in the cruise as acceptable, or was this a one-off incident caused by a fault in the TCAS sensitivity or shielding?
We are all aware of the requirement to turn off electronic equipment in the cabin for take-off and landing, but not in the cruise. Do we therefore regard the chance of a false RA in the cruise as acceptable, or was this a one-off incident caused by a fault in the TCAS sensitivity or shielding?
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA 77
A possible cause to the accident could have been a failure of the autothrust system if this was engaged at the time. If this occured at low altitude at a point of low thrust the engines may have gone to ground idle instead of flight idle therefore needing around 8 secs to wind up again. Factoring in the time to realise the failure and react to it whilst trying to control the A/C all wastes valuable seconds.
Any thoughts from 777 drivers?
It must have been developing some power because if the A/C had a total power failure at 2 miles it wouldn't have much extra speed to trade for height and I doubt whether it would have remained airborne for 40 seconds gliding from only 600 feet.
Any thoughts from 777 drivers?
It must have been developing some power because if the A/C had a total power failure at 2 miles it wouldn't have much extra speed to trade for height and I doubt whether it would have remained airborne for 40 seconds gliding from only 600 feet.
Last edited by fcom; 19th Jan 2008 at 16:54. Reason: Adding text
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27L "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."
Let's move these car parks."
Take a look at Google Maps Satellite pics or similar. 27L and R seem to have almost identical grass lead ins, and distances to the 09 LOC aerials. This approach on 27R, IMHO would have been almost identical...
09L/R from piano keys have considerably more distance available, since they are inset Thresholds. From end of concrete less...
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe (well I can) the amount of **** on this thread.
1. Why was the FO flying? Standard BA SOP's for his sector.
2. Use of FLCH. No when coupled to the ILS
3. No power until 600'. Not permitted under BA's ops. You have to be in the stable configuration normally by 1000' but ALWAYS at 500'. We have a call at 500 with a reply "stable" or "Go Around".
Stable= Gear and land flap down, approach power set and speed no more that touchdown speed +15kts. I can tell you for a fact they were stable. And I mean fact.
1. Why was the FO flying? Standard BA SOP's for his sector.
2. Use of FLCH. No when coupled to the ILS
3. No power until 600'. Not permitted under BA's ops. You have to be in the stable configuration normally by 1000' but ALWAYS at 500'. We have a call at 500 with a reply "stable" or "Go Around".
Stable= Gear and land flap down, approach power set and speed no more that touchdown speed +15kts. I can tell you for a fact they were stable. And I mean fact.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, my feeling is that internal and simultaneous (and presumably identical) failures causing this engine failure are almost impossible. I hope.
The initial report leaves some room for conjecture.
So I'm left with two lines of thought.
1. Either both engines had not failed or they were degraded to differing degrees.
2. Given what I suppose above about the chances of an internal and simultaneous failure, I'm led towards thinking the cause was external or environmental.
Again, just a hunch but I believe the stage of flight may prove to be a factor. It may prove to be that the cause of this failure could not have been possible in the cruise.
FWIW I'm going with ice, thermal shock or something temperature related. But I feel that the fact that they were on an approach may be important.
The initial report leaves some room for conjecture.
So I'm left with two lines of thought.
1. Either both engines had not failed or they were degraded to differing degrees.
2. Given what I suppose above about the chances of an internal and simultaneous failure, I'm led towards thinking the cause was external or environmental.
Again, just a hunch but I believe the stage of flight may prove to be a factor. It may prove to be that the cause of this failure could not have been possible in the cruise.
FWIW I'm going with ice, thermal shock or something temperature related. But I feel that the fact that they were on an approach may be important.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: KLAX
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If this occured at low altitude at a point of low thrust the engines may have gone to ground idle instead of flight idle therefore needing around 8 secs to wind up again."
I also believe that ground idle would contribute to this, however ground idle generally requires ground shift - ie - weight on the gear struts, wheel spinup, ect. . . . It's not unheard of however, for an in-flight aircraft to be in ground mode.
I also believe that ground idle would contribute to this, however ground idle generally requires ground shift - ie - weight on the gear struts, wheel spinup, ect. . . . It's not unheard of however, for an in-flight aircraft to be in ground mode.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Surrey UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. No power until 600'. Not permitted under BA's ops. You have to be in the stable configuration normally by 1000' but ALWAYS at 500'. We have a call at 500 with a reply "stable" or "Go Around".
Stable= Gear and land flap down, approach power set and speed no more that touchdown speed +15kts. I can tell you for a fact they were stable. And I mean fact.
Stable= Gear and land flap down, approach power set and speed no more that touchdown speed +15kts. I can tell you for a fact they were stable. And I mean fact.
To land 300m short means they must have had significantly less thrust than that required to make a "normal" landing, so the power setting must have changed (degraded) in the interim.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stable= Gear and land flap down, approach power set and speed no more that touchdown speed +15kts. I can tell you for a fact they were stable. And I mean fact.
Sorry You Gimboid you beat me to it!
How many of you pilots have used hand held GPS on the flight deck? (I know nobody will answer that)
As one poster pointed out, all the sensative electronics are tested and shielded for EMI.
Filtering components are no more reliable than any other electronics. They can and do fail.
Shielding can be damaged, left off or left unconnected after maintenance.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft was stable but aproach power does not have to be absolutely set until 500'. It may be that spped was reducing to vref +5 (or whatever they were using) at 600'. However it is clear that at this point or at 500' things would have been normal. From there on the aircraft would have continued to lose speed. The A/T would then have demanded more power which it would appear never arrived for one reason or another.
Both auto and of course manual thrust is available. Neither gave the power required to maintain the speed. Then you have to sacrifice something, speed or height.
Their actions ensured that no-one was killed.
Both auto and of course manual thrust is available. Neither gave the power required to maintain the speed. Then you have to sacrifice something, speed or height.
Their actions ensured that no-one was killed.
Last edited by Nigel_the_Normal; 19th Jan 2008 at 18:43.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if they were stable, with approach power set one can assume that the autothrottle wasn't asking for that much power when the engines failed to respond, surely they must have had considerably less than 'approach power' on for this to happen...unless of course the engines actually lost power (which the AAIB didn't mention). What sort of N1 would a 777 have on for an approach like that?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Age: 47
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious...
Why there aren't cameras trained on active runways by default? It would seem a simple measure, and if the local Kwik-Mart can afford it and thinks it worthwhile, it would seem that aviation safety would gain from it...
JA
JA
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
retired BA Captain
Was involved in a major incident a few years ago and Flight Crew and family were all absolutely forbidden to speak to the press never mind about contacting a publicist!!
One of my sources also tells me that the Captain quite instictively selected flap to 25 to reduce the drag. If this is the case I would suggest that this stopped them hitting the road or ILS bank, and almost certain death.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever flown a real airplane?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone mentioned Flap 25 as standard landing flaps for BA. How lucky in this case...imagine the greater drag from a Flap 30 landing combined with the lower Vref +5 speed that they would have been at...wonder if they would have then cleared the fence if they had indeed lost thrust on both engines...scary thought.
