BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penny's Worth
If the reports that there were no PAs made from the flightdeck crew after the aircraft had come to a halt, and that the evacuation was Cabin Crew initiated, are true (which I hope prove to be false) then there was clearly some failing in the cockpit. Whilst I am loathed to criticise, clearly either a call for normal operations or a call to evacuate should have been made.
Could some sort of static pressure blockage have led to erroneous (increasing) airspeed indications on the approach?
I would agree that it looks like the number 1 engine appears to have been rotating, whilst the number 2 blades look suspiciously intact.
What scares me is that these aircraft fly (up to) 180 minutes from a diversion at times. If this aircraft did suffer a double engine failure I would imagine this would have been immediately reduced to 60 minutes (or less). Possibly even the fleet would be grounded.
Anyone know whether the 777s are still flying today and, if so, what restrictions have been placed upon them?
Could some sort of static pressure blockage have led to erroneous (increasing) airspeed indications on the approach?
I would agree that it looks like the number 1 engine appears to have been rotating, whilst the number 2 blades look suspiciously intact.
What scares me is that these aircraft fly (up to) 180 minutes from a diversion at times. If this aircraft did suffer a double engine failure I would imagine this would have been immediately reduced to 60 minutes (or less). Possibly even the fleet would be grounded.
Anyone know whether the 777s are still flying today and, if so, what restrictions have been placed upon them?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Channel 4 (i.e. ITN) SPECULATION was that water contamination was a POSSIBILITY. It is also reporting (seemingly as a fact ?) that both engines failed (?????)
My main point is, however, that whilst idle speculation and praising or blaiming of individuals or companies it is a natuaral outcome of the lack of information.
There is no possible way that any industry can keep the media, and especially the 24-hours per day TV outlets content. However, NOT giving out basic facts and known non-controversial facts is really only basic PR. The fact that whilst the BBC 1 o'clock news at about 1.15 yesterday (i.e. half-an-hour after the event) was stating that both engines had failed, but that since then no further non-controversial facts have been released merely gives rise to speculation (and even the 2 engine failure has not been really confirmed)..
Someone further up the thread posted something like "non-serious crash, no one dead" which is very naive. First it was a very serious crash, and secondly it happened in an area which was always going to attract attention.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable (let alone imposters). It would seem that the range of comments from those that wished to be interviewed ranged from "very rough, we feel lucky to be alive" through to " rough landing, we only knew how rough when the oxygen masks (and some panels) came down".
These things get people watching news programmes and buying newspapers - with BA and BAA not giving out basic information the media has to do something (however despicable others might feel about that). All BA/BAA had to do was try to give out CONTROLLED information and time it for main news reports and newspaper print runs. Pop star publicists can do this, but somehow huge multi-million pound companies can't be bothered.
No one expects a detailed listing of every possibility, but basic information with timetables of likely, but not guaranteed actions, at least ties journalists down to limiting their speculation.
-----
As an aside I am very surprised that with all the enthusiasts around the airport there are no copies of tower voice converstaions or videos of the landing - maybe the yucky weather had them all in the local chippies.
.
My main point is, however, that whilst idle speculation and praising or blaiming of individuals or companies it is a natuaral outcome of the lack of information.
There is no possible way that any industry can keep the media, and especially the 24-hours per day TV outlets content. However, NOT giving out basic facts and known non-controversial facts is really only basic PR. The fact that whilst the BBC 1 o'clock news at about 1.15 yesterday (i.e. half-an-hour after the event) was stating that both engines had failed, but that since then no further non-controversial facts have been released merely gives rise to speculation (and even the 2 engine failure has not been really confirmed)..
Someone further up the thread posted something like "non-serious crash, no one dead" which is very naive. First it was a very serious crash, and secondly it happened in an area which was always going to attract attention.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable (let alone imposters). It would seem that the range of comments from those that wished to be interviewed ranged from "very rough, we feel lucky to be alive" through to " rough landing, we only knew how rough when the oxygen masks (and some panels) came down".
These things get people watching news programmes and buying newspapers - with BA and BAA not giving out basic information the media has to do something (however despicable others might feel about that). All BA/BAA had to do was try to give out CONTROLLED information and time it for main news reports and newspaper print runs. Pop star publicists can do this, but somehow huge multi-million pound companies can't be bothered.
No one expects a detailed listing of every possibility, but basic information with timetables of likely, but not guaranteed actions, at least ties journalists down to limiting their speculation.
-----
As an aside I am very surprised that with all the enthusiasts around the airport there are no copies of tower voice converstaions or videos of the landing - maybe the yucky weather had them all in the local chippies.
.
Speculation is going to be rife after this incident, until the AAIB report comes out. However, having had it straight from the horses mouth on the radio 4 news last night, we can rule out human error in this case.
David Learmount clearly stated on the five o'clock news that "British Airways pilots don't make mistakes" and then on the six o'clock news "It definately was not error.
Did I miss the publication of the very rapid AAIB report?
How come every time this bloke makes a statement on TV or radio his Kn*b quotient increases in direct proportion to the length of his speach?
Doc C
David Learmount clearly stated on the five o'clock news that "British Airways pilots don't make mistakes" and then on the six o'clock news "It definately was not error.
Did I miss the publication of the very rapid AAIB report?
How come every time this bloke makes a statement on TV or radio his Kn*b quotient increases in direct proportion to the length of his speach?
Doc C
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: lgw
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
I think you got up too early. Next time you do a walk round on a windy day watch the N1 baldes turn. Even better watch an engine wind down on a windy day. N1 blades have rotation.
Failed engine + fwd speed + relative wind = rotation but only drag not thrust.
Left engine was up wind .
I think you got up too early. Next time you do a walk round on a windy day watch the N1 baldes turn. Even better watch an engine wind down on a windy day. N1 blades have rotation.
Failed engine + fwd speed + relative wind = rotation but only drag not thrust.
Left engine was up wind .
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Trindade
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fadec ?
A FADEC problem ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
Rarely is an incident like this down to just one thing. It is usually a
combination of events all happening at the wrong time.
Is it possible that when the pilot added thrust input the engines dropped
into ground idle ? With the engines spooled down, regaining thrust could seem like forever considering how close they were to landing.
There is also an indication of a greater problem of power loss.
Could this have caused a default to idle ? This would be an area
for computer expertise. With 1,000 + B777's sold it would prove
embarrassing in there was a problem with the type ?
A great piloting feat !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
Rarely is an incident like this down to just one thing. It is usually a
combination of events all happening at the wrong time.
Is it possible that when the pilot added thrust input the engines dropped
into ground idle ? With the engines spooled down, regaining thrust could seem like forever considering how close they were to landing.
There is also an indication of a greater problem of power loss.
Could this have caused a default to idle ? This would be an area
for computer expertise. With 1,000 + B777's sold it would prove
embarrassing in there was a problem with the type ?
A great piloting feat !
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skylion:
You missed the bit on the end: "... for the circumstances". When we know the circumstances we'll know whether the flap position was reasonable.
Vanman:
How do you know the flight crew didn't attempt to communicate with the cabin? Depending on the nature of the electrical failure and subseqent impact damage, it might not have worked. Or they were too busy with whatever shutdown procedures were left to do. Why shouldn't the senior cabin crew have authority to evacuate if they can't get through to the flight deck (who could have been unconscious/dead at that point), given that the aircraft was stationary, unlikely to move, and might yet catch fire. Best to get everyone out.
Look at the flaps. Correct landing settings?
Vanman:
If the reports that there were no PAs made from the flightdeck crew after the aircraft had come to a halt, and that the evacuation was Cabin Crew initiated, are true (which I hope prove to be false) then there was clearly some failing in the cockpit. Whilst I am loathed to criticise, clearly either a call for normal operations or a call to evacuate should have been made.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aviat179
Several eye witness reports from passengers onboard the aircraft suggest that they could hear louder than normal engine noise on the approach and a higher deck angle sensation than they are used to; so why are people coming to the conclusion the aircraft suffered a double engine failure. The short video of the a/c's approach confirms it was at an unusually high angle of attack, the approach path flown is consistent with the escape manoeuvre to be executed when encountering windshear. Based upon the facts, the two most likely scenarios which caused the a/c to land short are microburst or wake vortices encounter.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: HKG
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Contamination?
I’m extremely happy that no one was badly hurt or killed and that the company came out in support of the air crew. The crew did a good job of the dead stick landing, but has the possibility that the fuel line were contaminated with AIR been considered?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 35
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no wish to speculate but it would appear that if Mike Walsh unreseveredly praises the Flight Crew, and have his PTR bods know the most first hand information then very probably the flight crew did indeed to an incredable job of get the aircraft down onto the best possible peice of ground.
I am only a PPl just staring out on the path to a commercial career but it does make me feel incredible proud to be entering a profession with such amazing proffesionals.
It seems that many people running airlines consider pilots as glorified bus drivers / minders and treat them accordingly. This incident I hope will make many of these people realise just why they are there and what an amazing job the can do when called upon.
I am only a PPl just staring out on the path to a commercial career but it does make me feel incredible proud to be entering a profession with such amazing proffesionals.
It seems that many people running airlines consider pilots as glorified bus drivers / minders and treat them accordingly. This incident I hope will make many of these people realise just why they are there and what an amazing job the can do when called upon.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Surrey UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance is clearly not restricted to the media!
I haven't posted in more than two years but i can't hold back in the face of all this cr@p.
I can't believe that posters on this thread will slag off the "ignorant media" while tolerating the absolute tripe that is being written on this thread.
As you know the site has been swamped with journos trying to get an inside track from the "knowledgable, professional pilots" on this forum. With a few notable exceptions we have proved that we are behaving as anything but.
We can speculate for ever until the facts are made public. Until then, shut the hell up and let the professionals do their job of finding out what went wrong, how it happened, and what we can learn from the whole episode.
I apologise to those professionals who have enlightened us somewhat with their informed speculation, but as a BA 777 pilot based at Heathrow, I can barely stand by to read all the utter tosh that passes for "pilots'" comments in this thread.
I can't believe that posters on this thread will slag off the "ignorant media" while tolerating the absolute tripe that is being written on this thread.
As you know the site has been swamped with journos trying to get an inside track from the "knowledgable, professional pilots" on this forum. With a few notable exceptions we have proved that we are behaving as anything but.
We can speculate for ever until the facts are made public. Until then, shut the hell up and let the professionals do their job of finding out what went wrong, how it happened, and what we can learn from the whole episode.
I apologise to those professionals who have enlightened us somewhat with their informed speculation, but as a BA 777 pilot based at Heathrow, I can barely stand by to read all the utter tosh that passes for "pilots'" comments in this thread.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dunstable
Age: 64
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APU Autostart
Is it standard Operating Proceedure to do an APU start on BA in the air?
Thought they normally did it on taxi in? Unless you have a problem that is
The Apu door is open on the tail!!
The APU will Autostart for the following:
But that can be deployed manually or Auto
In Auto it will deploy for the Following
So loss of Both main AC power sources then?...Both IDGs...or engines?
Cannaee get ane more power Capt'n...Never mind Scotty we are goin for a landin!!
If you aint got Airspeed theres only AoA...more of it..till Stall..Re: G-ARPI Trident in Staines
Thought they normally did it on taxi in? Unless you have a problem that is
The Apu door is open on the tail!!
The APU will Autostart for the following:
- Aircraft in Air
- Loss of power from BOTH transfer buses
But that can be deployed manually or Auto
In Auto it will deploy for the Following
- Aircraft in Air
- Loss of power from BOTH Transfer Buses
So loss of Both main AC power sources then?...Both IDGs...or engines?
Cannaee get ane more power Capt'n...Never mind Scotty we are goin for a landin!!
If you aint got Airspeed theres only AoA...more of it..till Stall..Re: G-ARPI Trident in Staines
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: eire
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the video - VERY high deck angle on short final. If the engines had flamed out earlier and were restarted following significant height/speed loss that would explain high power setting in attempt to recover airspeed from backside of the power curve. If one engine came back on speed first and power applied to it first that could explain the high bank reported.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dunstable
Age: 64
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APU Autostart
Is it Standard oOperating Procedure to start the APU in the air at BA?
Thought they normally started the APU on the Ground at taxi in?
The APU door is open on the back end!
Both engines...even unliklier...or a combo one Eng and other IDG?
UNLUCKY
Thought they normally started the APU on the Ground at taxi in?
The APU door is open on the back end!
- The APU will AUTO start for the following :
Aircraft in Air mode
Loss of both AC transfer buses
- As regards the RAT, not sure if it was deployed or has been ripped from its housing on impact but it will deploy and provide basic generation of power through Hyds for Flight controls and CAPTs panel
RAT willl deploy with the following:
Aircraft in Air mode
Loss of both transfer buses for 15 secs
Both engines...even unliklier...or a combo one Eng and other IDG?
UNLUCKY
Fuel remaining?
Just how much fuel was in the tanks on coming to rest? Some or none?
Plenty of aircraft have come to grief in similar circumstances due to insufficient fuel remaining. Any rumours?
Plenty of aircraft have come to grief in similar circumstances due to insufficient fuel remaining. Any rumours?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SAR
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel starvation.
No way, not a western airline anyway, not without a mayday call from one of the 3 or 4 crew members.
If that RAT was deployed as a result of whatever occurred, then whatever was the reason it was not a pretty one...would have been interesting to see the EICAS messages @ 100'!
RAT deployment:
• both engines are failed and center system pressure is low, or
• both AC transfer busses are unpowered, or
• all three hydraulic system pressures are low.
well done crew for keeping those wings level.
No way, not a western airline anyway, not without a mayday call from one of the 3 or 4 crew members.
If that RAT was deployed as a result of whatever occurred, then whatever was the reason it was not a pretty one...would have been interesting to see the EICAS messages @ 100'!
RAT deployment:
• both engines are failed and center system pressure is low, or
• both AC transfer busses are unpowered, or
• all three hydraulic system pressures are low.
well done crew for keeping those wings level.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: JAPAN
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems to be a very fortunate ending to an otherwise potentially
tragic scenario. I for one am extremely happy about the outcome.
For anyone who remembers the Etihad A-340 accident a couple of
months ago, when that aircraft basically broke apart on the ground,
with a little help, granted that, I would want you to consider the following. Someone in that threat wondered, what would happen to the A-340 if she had a hard landing. Of course we don't know and hopefully never find out, but, well, this B-777 did have sort of a hard landing, or?
Actually it fell out of the sky, and it's still in one piece. I flew my last bird 25 years ago, a wonderful and indestructable 727, but I am forever a Boeing fan. And yesterday's incident and the positive outcome is another reason why. You will have a hard time to get me into an Airbus. Wonder, how the new carbon fiber based birds will hold up in such circumstances. Again, happy everyone came out alive without serious injuries. Now you guys can go on with your theories
tragic scenario. I for one am extremely happy about the outcome.
For anyone who remembers the Etihad A-340 accident a couple of
months ago, when that aircraft basically broke apart on the ground,
with a little help, granted that, I would want you to consider the following. Someone in that threat wondered, what would happen to the A-340 if she had a hard landing. Of course we don't know and hopefully never find out, but, well, this B-777 did have sort of a hard landing, or?
Actually it fell out of the sky, and it's still in one piece. I flew my last bird 25 years ago, a wonderful and indestructable 727, but I am forever a Boeing fan. And yesterday's incident and the positive outcome is another reason why. You will have a hard time to get me into an Airbus. Wonder, how the new carbon fiber based birds will hold up in such circumstances. Again, happy everyone came out alive without serious injuries. Now you guys can go on with your theories
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashworthiness
No causal speculation here...
I just want to say how impressed I am with the way that the airframe survived the impact. After losing that much energy in so short a distance, it's extraordinary that the occupants could just get up and walk out of the aircraft. From the published passenger accounts, they don't even seem to have adopted the brace position. Incredible!
I just want to say how impressed I am with the way that the airframe survived the impact. After losing that much energy in so short a distance, it's extraordinary that the occupants could just get up and walk out of the aircraft. From the published passenger accounts, they don't even seem to have adopted the brace position. Incredible!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely no doubt that these engines were rotating. As they would whether or not they were operating.
Only a proper investigation will determine how much power they were producing during the final moments.
Only a proper investigation will determine how much power they were producing during the final moments.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: london
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why most professional pilots stay well clear of this forum. And to think that the press report from here, talk about the blind leading the blind!.
AAIB report tomorrow, they are the best in the world, why don't we let them get on with it. Todays peking flight is delayed on the ground due mandatory fuel quality check. What does that mean? Who knows.
AAIB report tomorrow, they are the best in the world, why don't we let them get on with it. Todays peking flight is delayed on the ground due mandatory fuel quality check. What does that mean? Who knows.