BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
" Same incident on 27 right at EGLL and the 777 would have found the VS Car Park. "
Judging from Google Maps, 27R has exactly the same amount of grass before the runway. About 450m.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...&t=h&z=15&om=0
Judging from Google Maps, 27R has exactly the same amount of grass before the runway. About 450m.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...&t=h&z=15&om=0
NTN;, Re,
Now, here I agree with you 150% and, among more than a few, share your intense frustration. If amateurs only asked questions instead of pronouncing! The signal-to-noise ratio on this (as well as past threads such as the TAM one) is far too high to have an intelligent discussion among professionals.
Not being argumentative in re the flap question - I don't think it would have been a crew action and offer my thoughts on why. It may have - we just don't know.
best,
PJ2
You people really make me want to puke with your ill informed bull****.
Not being argumentative in re the flap question - I don't think it would have been a crew action and offer my thoughts on why. It may have - we just don't know.
best,
PJ2
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the speculation. Really it is just a competition to try and second guess the investigation. I suspect there is a very simple explanation, which may have far reaching implications; we will know soon enough, of that I am sure.
Quite staggered that final landing configuration is so late these days
For the crew to agree to a PR media 'event' so soon after, I imagine they are confident their procedures were 100% correct, and have no idea either.
The points about RESA would also 'upset' a rather large residents opinion group about airports and extensions to their runway systems... with the enormous length of modern runways (with bigfan engines, reverese, staggering braking capability c.f. 60's/70's airliners + spoliers high=drag devices), why aren't the approaches targeted a long way up the runway, or are they?
Local weather info... I can supply that, for the Home Counties. At 2pm precisely we expeienced an 'extreme event' squall 20 miles due North line of flight from Heathrow... so not too impressed that 'weather', and specifically windshear, albeit maybe just a component factor, being dismissed or downgraded so readily...
Great landing, same as any 'seat of the pants' flyer would have done, nose down to somewhere better than Vmin (Vmd ideally) aiming at the boundary and flare heavily in ground effect (about 100ft in this case), birds do it by nature, hang-glider pilots do it by nature, needs teaching more in early days flying school, but FO Coward got it spot on!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Age: 78
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Partial power failure on finals.
Assuming the aircraft to be on the 3 deg glidepath at 2 miles/600 ft at the ideal airspeed but without sufficient thrust to hold that airspeed, clearly the planned 3 deg touchdown point cannot be achieved. If the thrust cannot be increased for whatever reason, the plan has to be to achieve the best 'glide' angle ('partial power glide' in this case) by flying the optimum AOA or recommended glide speed for best L/D ratio. If flaps are at a high drag position, bringing them up (if system still functioning) to a setting for best glide angle (suggested as 20 on this thread) will help move the touchdown point further forward. The only other option is to reduce ground track to touchdown point - not normally an option on a straight-in approach.
So, we now have the handling pilot assessing his revised aiming point and flying the best airspeed or AOA, and the non-handling pilot trying to solve the aircraft systems failures - good teamwork.
The revised aiming point is just before the perimeter road and airfield fence, but there is no choice but to continue for this point. On no account must the glide be 'stretched' until the very last moment in order to clear the road. It becomes obvious that by using some of the difference in airspeed between 'glide' speed and stalling speed, the aircraft can be finessed over the road and fence (well done John).
Now the aircraft has just cleared the fence but is very close to or at stalling speed with marginal tailplane authority to flare further. This results in increased descent rate into soft ground. The landing gear does a great job at absorbing the high rate of descent and collapses or is torn off through sinking into the ground, acting like a crumple zone. The fuselage now has minimal rate of descent as it touches the ground. The passengers think its just a bumpy landing and the pilots "learn about flying from that". Well done crew.
So, we now have the handling pilot assessing his revised aiming point and flying the best airspeed or AOA, and the non-handling pilot trying to solve the aircraft systems failures - good teamwork.
The revised aiming point is just before the perimeter road and airfield fence, but there is no choice but to continue for this point. On no account must the glide be 'stretched' until the very last moment in order to clear the road. It becomes obvious that by using some of the difference in airspeed between 'glide' speed and stalling speed, the aircraft can be finessed over the road and fence (well done John).
Now the aircraft has just cleared the fence but is very close to or at stalling speed with marginal tailplane authority to flare further. This results in increased descent rate into soft ground. The landing gear does a great job at absorbing the high rate of descent and collapses or is torn off through sinking into the ground, acting like a crumple zone. The fuselage now has minimal rate of descent as it touches the ground. The passengers think its just a bumpy landing and the pilots "learn about flying from that". Well done crew.
Last edited by Fenton Freddy; 19th Jan 2008 at 18:41. Reason: typos
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobile phones
Hi,
Firstly I'd seem some talk about stopping non-pilots from using this forum. if any action is taken in this regard I would like to hope you won't stop non-pilots from viewing, as I have learnt a lot about the jobs you do and actually get to the truth behind the hyped media reports.
I work in the phone industry and regarding mobile phones switch on in the plane. Even having phones switched on although not in a call with still be transmitting a lot off the time as 'cell handovers' between towers will be occurring often. especially in a urban area like London so this could would be akin to being in a call, plus a number of different frequencies are used in the handover process.
Firstly I'd seem some talk about stopping non-pilots from using this forum. if any action is taken in this regard I would like to hope you won't stop non-pilots from viewing, as I have learnt a lot about the jobs you do and actually get to the truth behind the hyped media reports.
I work in the phone industry and regarding mobile phones switch on in the plane. Even having phones switched on although not in a call with still be transmitting a lot off the time as 'cell handovers' between towers will be occurring often. especially in a urban area like London so this could would be akin to being in a call, plus a number of different frequencies are used in the handover process.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt Groper
"ECM interference"
The acronym you meant to use is EMC (electromagnetic compatabilty) but actually what you REALLY meant is EMI (electromagnetic interference).
"EMC interference" is a nonsense phrase. Please don't use things like that or we'll all end up seeing it in the press and have to blame YOU.
"ECM interference"
The acronym you meant to use is EMC (electromagnetic compatabilty) but actually what you REALLY meant is EMI (electromagnetic interference).
"EMC interference" is a nonsense phrase. Please don't use things like that or we'll all end up seeing it in the press and have to blame YOU.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm very fast to retirate the plane, comparated with the 346 of Quito for example...
I think what this is a very serious design problem of B777... with all, from the errors learning... Airbus good know...
regards.
I think what this is a very serious design problem of B777... with all, from the errors learning... Airbus good know...
regards.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be a cell phone?!
"Imagine if you would, a businessman or woman anxious to get their messages after a long transcontinental flight. To save a few minutes they turn on their cellphone while on final appraoch knowing that they will be able to get a signal at that point . . .."
This has been mentioned a couple of times recently in posts. I just want to add as SLF that I increasingly observe wireless devices being turned on during final approach. SLF may not be talking or texting but the devices are being turned on and transmitting control signals, I expect at high power to get a signal through those small windows to a base station antenna that is designed to have low gain above the horizontal (geometrical) plane.
Normally I expect this is not a problem. But (also suggested above) if some shielding comes loose from a cable, a filter breaks, etc. perhaps the system could become susceptible.
The SLF's wireless service providers store accurate, to the second, records of access that could be checked and matched to the sequence of events. Be aware, though, that it is possible a wireless device was attempting a contact at high power but did not succeed with the base station. In that case there would be no record.
This has been mentioned a couple of times recently in posts. I just want to add as SLF that I increasingly observe wireless devices being turned on during final approach. SLF may not be talking or texting but the devices are being turned on and transmitting control signals, I expect at high power to get a signal through those small windows to a base station antenna that is designed to have low gain above the horizontal (geometrical) plane.
Normally I expect this is not a problem. But (also suggested above) if some shielding comes loose from a cable, a filter breaks, etc. perhaps the system could become susceptible.
The SLF's wireless service providers store accurate, to the second, records of access that could be checked and matched to the sequence of events. Be aware, though, that it is possible a wireless device was attempting a contact at high power but did not succeed with the base station. In that case there would be no record.
For over 4 years I flew a Citation X, and we knew when someone had a cell phone turned on and on the aircraft because we could hear the "ping" or whatever it is through our headset/intercom. Anyway, on one flight we were climbing though the low '30s and we encountered simultaneous loss of numerous avionics systems (I'll spare you the details, but it was a domino effect: both Flight Guidance Computers failed first, we believe.) We were left with no autopilot, yaw damper, flight director, and a loud overspeed horn (due to a lower MMO due to no Y/D) among many other cautions/warnings. It was quite surprising at the time...everything just went to pot! While we pondered how that could have happened to BOTH sets of systems, my esteemed Captain asked the passengers to ensure their phones were off. The (now scared) passenger turned his phone off. When we got on the ground we looked at the "missed calls" log and found that the time correlated with the time of our incident. His phone was one of the older analog phones.
Looking back, I wish I would have filed a report to the FAA and NTSB. I now have a VERY STRICT policy of no cells phones when flying, especially digital aircraft. In the above scenario, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to think that the A/T would have been knocked off too. Our FADECs didn't appear to suffer any consequences of the event. I hope the investigators consider this scenario.
Last edited by formulaben; 19th Jan 2008 at 20:07.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: desert climate
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The First Officer has given an exclusive interview to Sky news, talked about the total loss of power and how he expected the worst when there was no response from the engines.
I find it surprising that he is talking to the press while the AAIB are still investigating the accident...... perhaps not a sensible thing to do.
I find it surprising that he is talking to the press while the AAIB are still investigating the accident...... perhaps not a sensible thing to do.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always found it curious that digital cameras do not seem to count as electronic devices, although they undoubtedly are.
I've never heard a flight attendant object to me using even a 1+ kg digital SLR camera during takeoff and landing.
I've never heard a flight attendant object to me using even a 1+ kg digital SLR camera during takeoff and landing.
Every time I fly Continental they tell us to "turn off anything that has a battery and an no/off switch" I just assumed it was to prevent a spark that could ignite fuel in the case of an accident.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS is a passive receiver, and the processing power required is very moderate, so it would not be a big source of RF radiation.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
R1
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2
I could not more see a BA crew doing this than any other seasoned professional crew. They would know instinctively that the initial response of the aircraft would be do increase the rate of descent, the only means by which it could be stopped would be to increase the angle of attack and risk the stall. Read my post, please: I stated at in the short time available the initial response of the aircraft would be to sink and below 600' there is no altitude to recover from the initial increase in rate of descent due to loss of lift.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is do you have time to calculate all this academic best glide speed nonsense when you are confronted witha dire emergency at 500 feet. I doubt I am alone among professional pilots in saying I have no idea what the best glide speed is on my aircraft in a non-clean config and I'll be damned if I'm going to get the graphs out to calculate it below 30,000 feet.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What utter tosh some of you write?
I'd be afraid putting my family on your flights if you really are professional pilots.
It did NOT run out of fuel.
It was NOT a freak windshear (since I landed my 777 before G-YMMM).
How can it possibly run out of fuel when procedures require you to declare a Mayday if you know you will be landing with less than Final Reserve Fuel.
They didnt. PLENTY OF THE STUFF!
To start recreating what would have been the best glide speed in dirty config is a complete waste of time. Probably somewhere around the Flap speeds as per the Vref calculations is close enough for government work.
The only thing you can do last minute if you find yourself an obstacle whilst gliding towards the theoratical max glide distance flown point is by heaving the nose up, trading energy for reduced RoD but therefore landing more short than you otherwise would have done.
You can exclude pilot error from this one (and thats ALL I am going to say about)
I'd be afraid putting my family on your flights if you really are professional pilots.
It did NOT run out of fuel.
It was NOT a freak windshear (since I landed my 777 before G-YMMM).
How can it possibly run out of fuel when procedures require you to declare a Mayday if you know you will be landing with less than Final Reserve Fuel.
They didnt. PLENTY OF THE STUFF!
To start recreating what would have been the best glide speed in dirty config is a complete waste of time. Probably somewhere around the Flap speeds as per the Vref calculations is close enough for government work.
The only thing you can do last minute if you find yourself an obstacle whilst gliding towards the theoratical max glide distance flown point is by heaving the nose up, trading energy for reduced RoD but therefore landing more short than you otherwise would have done.
You can exclude pilot error from this one (and thats ALL I am going to say about)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing the picture of her being lifted by the cranes I think, “Poor bird she did her best to keep her people safe.” I hope some part of her can have a fitting place in the BA home vs. all her being scrapped for aluminum cans. Cockpit trainer or cabin trainer comes to mind.
snowfalcon2;
In this circumstance, no, it will not.
It is indeed about rate-of-descent. There is NO room in this scenario to discuss "glide rate". By the time any meaningful "glide rate" could be established, they would have touched down, likely on the roadway.
Retracting high-lift devices, (in this case, flaps), reduces lift and would have very likely caused an earlier touchdown even with an increased pitch attitude - the near-instantaneous problem faced by this crew was balancing the available energy from the mass (the airplane) with the need to maintain an angle of attack which would accomplish this purpose but not stall the aircraft.
They would know instinctively, (to use up bandwidth in repetition) that retracting lifting devices would require an increase in the angle of attack to retain the same vertical path, (FPA - flight path angle). They would not know their stall speed nor their angle of attack (no need for either, in normal airline operations) so they would be flying on experience for the few dozen seconds they had to assess and respond to the unfolding emergency.
will the improved glide rate allow the aircraft to glide a longer distance until it meets Mother Nature?
This is not about rate-of-descent (except for the initial transition), it's about glide rate.
Retracting high-lift devices, (in this case, flaps), reduces lift and would have very likely caused an earlier touchdown even with an increased pitch attitude - the near-instantaneous problem faced by this crew was balancing the available energy from the mass (the airplane) with the need to maintain an angle of attack which would accomplish this purpose but not stall the aircraft.
They would know instinctively, (to use up bandwidth in repetition) that retracting lifting devices would require an increase in the angle of attack to retain the same vertical path, (FPA - flight path angle). They would not know their stall speed nor their angle of attack (no need for either, in normal airline operations) so they would be flying on experience for the few dozen seconds they had to assess and respond to the unfolding emergency.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portugal (sometimes)
Age: 52
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curi,
Was that intended to sound so utterly stupid? Firstly, this is nothing to do with any misguided Bus/Boeing debate and secondly, there is an aircraft (albeit in the Nations Flag carrier colours) stuck, blocking one of the runways at the 3rd busiest airport in the world!
Of course they are going to move it just as soon as the AAIB say they can, also BA/Heathrow have space away from public view to store and assess the A/C. Is basic common sense to ge things back to normality ASAP.
End of rant for now.
Was that intended to sound so utterly stupid? Firstly, this is nothing to do with any misguided Bus/Boeing debate and secondly, there is an aircraft (albeit in the Nations Flag carrier colours) stuck, blocking one of the runways at the 3rd busiest airport in the world!
Of course they are going to move it just as soon as the AAIB say they can, also BA/Heathrow have space away from public view to store and assess the A/C. Is basic common sense to ge things back to normality ASAP.
End of rant for now.