BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)

[fireloop]

accident: if people get killed

and/or damage to third parties...

[Lost in Saigon]

How long does the Trent take to spool up from idle...........

Who cares...... The engines were NOT at idle.

Both engines were running but not able to respond to the autothrottle or manual command for more power to make a small correction to the flight path.

Without the small correction the aircraft was not able to reach the intended touchdown point.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THIS?

[worldpilot]

I wont blame the Chinese for making fakes

Dropp the Pilot, I won't blame the Chinese for making or selling fake fuel. The ground crew should have determined the quality of the fuel before accepting it. However though, I'm also contemplating that this accident might have been caused by some fuel problems. But then, it is no ground to blame the Chinese for anything.

I want to congratulate the pilots for a tremendous job well done.

WP

[Suggs]

Mobile phones wouldn't have interfered with a 777. Mine never did.

It didn't hit any birds, there is no blood of the engine cowls.

I was on the peri track when it happened. It wasn't that windy and wasn't raining, don't believe that the engines would have stalled or surged.

A/T is irrelevant.

Both Engines failed. APU inlet door confirms this. Therefore transfer buses were off line so the generators weren't on. The engines might have been producing some residual thrust but they weren't working.

The redundancy on a 777 is massive. The EEC's (Engine control units) are independent and each has an Alternate.

The Fire protection systems can shut an engine down, isolate the hydraulics turn the generators etc etc.

I would put my money on a fault with one of the those systems.

A/c are not built with airbags or to withstand NCAP testing, the fact that the jet is still fundamentally in one peace is a real testament to the boys from Seattle.

The only thing that you cannot speculate on is that the crew did a magnificent job.

[Contacttower]

Suggs that post contains a lot assertions that we really don't know are true yet...speculation is fine (I have indulged in it a lot) but don't pretend that it is anything other than speculation.

Both Engines failed. APU inlet door confirms this. Therefore transfer buses were off line so the generators weren't on. The engines might have been producing some residual thrust but they weren't working.

I think if the AAIB thought they had actually 'failed' then they would have said so...maybe the APU door was just flung open by the force of the impact?

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by PJ2

Should we also "do the math" on ... the Gimli Glider?

PJ2,
The pilots on the Gimli Glider probably "did do the math" to set up the best glide, having 'a bit' more time, and glider experience !

[gulfairs]

777 accident

500 ft no power!
Time for 3 "Ah ****s"
Both of those guys should get a Gong for the excellent job of getting a dead duck onto the ground without really hurting any one.

Super job Chaps, I know I would need clean underwear prior to touch down if it had been me.
Lets wait for the recorders to be decoded into plain language.
BBG

[HarryMann]

Thanks to you both...

I was simply using figures quoted earlier, 160 kt, 1,000 ft and 2nm to get a rough idea of 'time to go'

Yes thanks, quite aware that fine, and in thermally or w/shear conditions, coarse throttle adjustments are made all the way down...

But if what I read above is correct, final landing flap and therefore thrust re-adjustment and requirement to re-stabilise descent is made at or shortly before that point... which seems approx. where things started to go wrong.

Point 2) If glideslope intersects approx. 1000 ft up runway, then BA 038 touched down approx. 700 yards short...

Since we don't know how much thrust WAS being produced on average during those last 2 nm, this figure can at least give an idea... ?

.. compared to what was actually needed on the day, in those conditions, for that aircraft in its final configuration.

[AmericanFlyer]

FADEC Software

Flyer

They had loads of fuel on the aircraft. I'm told around 11 tonnes on approach.

If they had run out of fuel I think they may have noticed a low fuel state in the LAM hold, where they spent a little time before the approach.

You people really make me want to puke with your ill informed bull****.


What does the FADEC software have to do with the amount of fuel on the aircraft? FADEC software controls the engines, does it not? If FADEC software had an error in which it did not spool up the engines when requested by pilot input, the amount of fuel remaining is unimportant.

[cargosales]

Bugger, I don't have any kind of Flight Sim game on my computer so I can't join in with the daft speculation as to why this happened so I'll have to content myself with reading the AAIB report when it comes out.

In the meantime, BIG round of applause to all the crew, especially the captain for doing a captain's job and allowing his crew to get on with their jobs while he got on with managing the overall situation (or is that more idle speculation?) And applause to the new glider pilot John Coward..

As an ex gliding instructor, having to stretch an approach to make the field for whatever reason (in our case, misjudged/changed wind strength or suicidal stude trying to spoil our day, it matters not) in just a few hundred kilos of purpose built GRP glider can be seriously scary

I can only begin to imagine how these guys felt trying to do the same in something not specifically designed to glide and presumably with all the characteristics of a flying brick. + brown underwear is my starter for 10 and I wouldn't wish those few minutes on my worst enemy.

Nice one BA crew

CS

[ZQA297/30]

Some wondered whether this was an accident or an incident. According to ICAO annex 13

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

ANNEX 13

TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION

CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS

When the following terms are used in the Standards and Recommended practices for Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation they have the following meaning:

Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of

- being in the aircraft, or

- direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or

- direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew: or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and

- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,

except for engine failure or damage. when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories: or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin: or

c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

Note I.-- For statistical uniformity only, an injury resulting in death within thirty days of the date of the accident is classified as a fatal injury by ICAO.

Note 2.-- An aircraft is considered to be missing when the official search has been terminated and the wreckage has not been located.

Incident. An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation.

Note.-- The type of incidents which are of main interest to the International Civil Aviation Organization for accident prevention studies are listed in the ICAO Accident/lncident Reporting Manual (Doe 9156).

[bsieker]

Shaka Zulu, fireloop, tmax

this was undoubtedly an accident, although no-one got seriously injured. As was the Ibera-A340-Quito case:

According to ICAO Annex 13 (simplified):

Accident.

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured [...] or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

—adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and

—would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,

except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or

c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible


Incident.

An occurrence, other than an accident, associated
with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could
affect the safety of operation.

I think the damage other than "damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin" would adversely affect the flight characteristics


Bernd

[sevenstrokeroll]

Lost In Saigon

You indicate the engines were NOT at idle...fine...what setting were they at? N1 , fuel flow...whatever you have.

you choose.


I do care about the spool up time of the trent engine...if someone knows, I hope they will post it.

You see, I have the view that they were at idle or very nearly so and when they went to add power (or allow the autothrottle to do so), things didn't happen quite right.

IF they were at a normal approach setting (granted pilots do adjust thrust throughout the approach for conditions) or somewhere NEAR normal approach setting, I think they would have been closer to the runway and not so close to the stall. Our company guidelines are quite specific about power settings and not allowing the engines to get unspooled at low altitudes.

please tell us what the N1 was according to data recorders, or fuel flow, or if installed EPR...anything...but don't just tell us "they weren't at idle".

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by Shaka Zulu

... accident: if people get killed ...

Ancient discussion, look in 'Tech Log'.
Major airframe damage is also formally classed as an accident, regardless of whether there were casualties.

[Intruder]

My point is that by 600ft RA the aircraft should have been correctly configured and with approach power (~55% N1) set. A loss of thrust lever command authority at 600ft RA would only be significant if the thrust setting was towards idle to begin with, and didn't return to the normal 50-55% required with the aircraft in landing configuration.

There has been a lot of talk about the stabilized approach criteria, and a bit of talk about the 160 KT at 4 DME requirement at LHR. So far, though, I have not seen a lot about the possibility that the throttles were indeed at idle approaching 600' due to a combination of possible circumstances:

Late decel from 160 Kt to target speed (anyone care to speculate what that may have been?). Remember that 4 DME is 1200', just 2 NM or about 45 seconds before the problem was noted. If the pilots were late in selecting target speed on the MCP, the throttles could well have been at or near idle. To illustrate a similar approach, a few days ago we were inbound to HKG 07R in an empty 747 Classic. Target speed was around 128 at Flpas 25. Approach wanted 180 Kt to 6 miles (level at 2000', intercept G/S just prior to 6), Tower wanted "as fast as possible" to 5. New FO (just off IOE) was PF, put throttles to idle at 6 mi to decel to target speed, and kept them there longer than was comfortable for me. It took 2 prompts of "power up" before he responded.

To that you can add any combination of wind gusts/shear that might prompt the autothrottles to keep the power low, and it is not hard to see the situation of idle thrust at 600', otherwise configured and "stable." In VMC, our requirement is "stable approach" at 500', so a low power setting (40% N1 is my personal minimum at low altitude) at 600-700' would not be unusual in a situation like this.

After that, any glitch in one or both engines could easily cause exactly the problem this 777 saw. It is possible that the failure of one engine to respond immediately could have been interpreted as a failure of both of them to respond. From the pix of the engines after landing, it appears to me one of them was producing significantly more thrust at touchdown than the other...

[interpreter]

Question from a simple PPL...

Why at 600 feet was there a need for additional thrust? If the aircraft was at that stage being flown manually (I believe it is normal to disconnect the autopilot at approximately 1000 feet) had the sink rate become excessive and a need for more thrust? If so why? Sudden tailwind component or sharp drop in nosewind component? As I understand it once the aircraft is established properly on the glideslope at the recommended airspeed the descent should be continuous and stable - weather permitting - until the flare. Is that correct? I believe one of the most revealing pieces of information will be the glideslope and autothrottle data from the moment the aircraft intercepted the ILS and established itself on the glideslope. Perhaps the autothrottle displayed irregularities earlier on? Also why the description of a marked bank at some stage. Was one engine not performing properly and producing marked yaw?

Fascinating - and that's enough guessing for me on this thread. Over to you guys who fly the "brutes" for your living while we amateurs shut up.

[Hand Solo]

You see, I have the view that they were at idle or very nearly so and when they went to add power (or allow the autothrottle to do so), things didn't happen quite right.

IF they were at a normal approach setting (granted pilots do adjust thrust throughout the approach for conditions) or somewhere NEAR normal approach setting, I think they would have been closer to the runway and not so close to the stall. Our company guidelines are quite specific about power settings and not allowing the engines to get unspooled at low altitudes.

Well thanks for sharing those crank theories with us. You'll be pleased to hear BA has similar guidelines along with a hard restriction at 500 feet. I don't know what the spool up time is for a Trent engine, but I can guarantee it's not 30 seconds, yet when the aircraft hit the ground the thrust levers were at the TOGA position and they still weren't getting anything from the engines.

Originally Posted by Intruder

It is possible that the failure of one engine to respond immediately could have been interpreted as a failure of both of them to respond. From the pix of the engines after landing, it appears to me one of them was producing significantly more thrust at touchdown than the other...

The AAIB have already said both engines failed to respond. That has come from hard data, not human perception.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Intruder:

I think you and I are on the same page...perhaps LOST IN SAIGON could read your post for additional clarification.

It might just be that you and I are the last on the planet to understand being spooled up at low altitude...perhaps the 777 is so magic, you don't have to watch N1 ever.

;-)

and I would have said 42% as my min, but we fly different planes.

good reading your post.

[EFHF]

Originally Posted by 30mRad

The instrument touch down point (where the PAR or ILS is designed to make you touch down) is a distance in from the actual threshold of the runway (and for a displaced threshold it's from that)
I don't know the exact distance, and it'll vary depending on the glidepath angle (assume LHR is 3 deg?) but it's about 1000 ft in for a 2.5 deg glidepath - although I'm not normally looking at the distance to go markers at that stage of an approach!

From this picture it appears the GS antenna for 27L is little over 300 m, little less than 1000 ft from the start of the TDZ:

Here is also a sim picture with the position marked at 600 ft altitude in a simulated glide path:

[julianjarvis]

newspaper reports

As an example of just how poor the media reporting is on this is the guardian today reported that the enignes on the plane were GE engines. This was next to a picture showing one of the engines with the RR logo clearly displayed. Idiots