BA038 Crew get BA safety Medal

[merlinxx]

Come on you lot, you weren't there so don't fart around with your anti/pro stuff, you re just making yourselves look juvenile

If your are the airmen you consider yourselves to be, then apply the professionalism that comes with that status, rather than being 15 year girls fighting over a magazine article.

Grow up please

[S.F.L.Y]

the crew was congratulated on an outcome that could not have been better?

I hope the crew wasn't simply congratulated because the outcome couldn't have been better but because of their acts... since everybody seems to agree on the fact they did well, it shouldn't be difficult to explain on which of their action the medals have been awarded. Instead of always ranting when somebody is asking this question (which in any case is meant to insult the crew) why can't anybody elaborate on the precise actions which deserved medals?

The glide path ends hundred of meters after the physical threshold, keeping aiming at it at 108 kts is definitely not an optimal strategy. Of course it wasn't the crew's strategy to aim that far and it's only because the AP was on that the aircraft flew that path. Aiming at the actual touchdown point would have led them to the same place while saving the precious kts they AP spoiled leading to critical Vz.

[Clandestino]

Please ignore the trolls.

First interim AAIB report very clearly stated what the crew did. Some posters here either didn't bother to read it or possess remarkable inability to understand what is written there.

[S.F.L.Y]

First interim AAIB report very clearly stated what the crew did.

It report the AP flew the aircraft until stick shaker followed by high Vz till impact. I might have missed critical crew actions, which is the reason why I'm humbly asking for clarifications and not smart remarks.

It is apparently impossible to share different points of view in a respectful manner when it comes to this topic.

[chris weston]

Kabaka P200

Agree completely.

Airmanship under pressure.

Recognise it, end of.



CW

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by Topbunk

Lowered the nose to fly and Vref and crash short into the aforementioned houses, petrol station, tube station and dual carriageway? What options do you think they hadwhen the engines failed to respond at 2nm final?

- most pilots learn early in their flying training that a/c glide further at best L/D than near the stall. There is no reason on earth why 'lowering the nose' would have taken them into 'houses' etc. Have a look at any good text book on total airfame drag - D P Davies?

It is VERY IMPORTANT that the younger generation - in fact any generation - do not go away with this misleading and incorrect attitude to engine failures/loss of power. Any good instructor will point out where 'stretching the glide' is a good idea and where it isn't. There is no hard and fast rule, which is what you are implying. I actually think that from the height at which they 'discovered' the lost power, it was 50/50 whether reducing speed to stretch the glide or going for best glide distance took them further and I make no judgement call on that - I just don't know - wasn't there.

What I do know is that 'lowering the nose' to maintain best L/D will probably save more hulls and lives than reducing to the stall a few hundred feet up. Ask any qualified instructor.