BA038 Crew get BA safety Medal

[sispanys ria]

D+1 press conference:

YouTube - Pilot Of BA Boeing 777 Speaks Out

I find quite inappropriate to make a "show" (with clapping public) out of a crew 24 H after a major crash, especially to find out that after over 7 months no information is available on how the crew detected and handled this failure (which would be even more important to know for obvious safety reasons that the causes are still undetermined...). Instead of safety oriented feedback, all we get is PR and medals. I'm quite sure any concerned 777 pilot would prefer technical cockpit info instead of public BA auto-congratulations.

[point8six]

Capt Coue -rest assured that if there was any hint of fuel mismanagement (i.e. low fuel state) by the crew, there would be no medals - just letters of dismissal.

[windytoo]

Perhaps the autopilot should be awarded the George medal.

[cjam]

Sispanis ria,
Personally I wouldn't be so quick to mock the flight crew for leaving the autopilot in. When it first became apparent to them that there was a problem, a major problem, it would have been a priority to determine what that problem was. Immediately disconnecting the auto pilot is not the way to start analysing. They were obviously aware of decaying airspeed, hence the action taken to manually increase thrust.
I'm not saying one way or another that their actions were spot on because like everyone here, I don't know. What I am saying is that a completely unexpected reduction in thrust on both engines at that stage of the approach would cause a degree of shock. A good crew will take a moment to assess what is happening when they recieve a shock and not launch instantaneously into a course of action. It sounds to me like they acted professionally in a very very difficult situation. They tried manually increasing thrust, when that wasn't working they reduced drag. What other options were open to them??? Very few I would suggest. It sounds like you would have disconnected and pointed the nose down to maintain airspeed....would you have cleared all the obstacles and touched down on the tarmac? Would you're brain have been so busy juggling airspeed maintenance with obstacle clearance that you neglected to reduce drag and landed shorter than them killing many? I don't know but as I said in my opening sentence, I wouldn't be so quick to mock the aircrew for not disconnecting.
Just a thought, Cheers.

[cjam]

Sispanys ria,
You stated;

"Any basic ppl student learns that on engine failure during final the best way is to go below the glide in order to keep speed and store kinetic energy since it the only way to control an aircraft and to flare with a low speed/fpm impact.
In the BA case there is obviously a very innovative way of managing dead stick landings since the "strategy" was to "burn" all of the available kinetic energy. As a result, with no more kinetic energy to control the path, the aircraft was controlled by its potential energy which threw it to the ground and resulted in substantial damages.
Can anybody elaborate on the advantages on keeping the AP fly the glide on a dead stick approach (which is opposite to the fundamentals taught in any correct flight school) ?"

Mate, for someone with an almighty "more than 3000TT" and 2500hrs Turbo prop PIC, don't you think it's a bit rich to start judging a BA 777 crew so harshly?
I am sure that they too can cast their minds back to how to fly an engine failure in a lightie and could discuss aerodynamics with you until the cows come home. Why not try and learn something rather than judge those more experienced than yourself? That way when you are in the left seat of a heavy you will be better prepared to handle situations as they arise.

[Good memories]

Hi Cjam,


In my humble opinion you are absolutely right. It is good to read polite and professional comments like yours who hit the nail on the head.

Good Flying!


John

[sispanys ria]

cjam,
thank you for your post and your research to dig out my background.
I'm not judging anybody, I'm just stating my astonishment towards this rewarding and I can promise you I'm not alone.
I don't need to be an astronaut to state that letting an AP fly an engineless aircraft on the glide is not an usual strategy. I bet the crew realized lately there was such an issue and that they didn't have so much choices when the AP disconnected.

I'm politely coming with questions regarding the actions the crew may have performed (for which they were rewarded) and I would expect a professional like you to help me through technical answers, but all I get are comments about my experience which according to you isn't enough to allow me to ask... As you recommended I'm asking to learn and I would appreciate if you could share your experience with my humble one by elaborating on why letting an AP flying a dead stick approach is a better strategy. I'm sure you did lot more of cruising hours than I did, so I respect you for that.

This is the ONLY thing I'm politely asking (and please understand that I'm not criticizing the crew). Please come straight to this point and save me from other personal comments.
Thanks and regards,

[rmiller774]

Where can I go to hear the conversations of the flight crew during this extremely tense period prior to the crash? Thank you.

[overstress]

rmiller: as far as I'm aware, you can't go anywhere to hear that, I don't think the AAIB play tapes to visitors.

syspanys ria:

I find quite inappropriate to make a "show" (with clapping public) out of a crew 24 H after a major crash, especially to find out that after over 7 months no information is available on how the crew detected and handled this failure

It doesn't really matter what you think, BTW that wasn't the 'clapping public' it was 'clapping BA staff' at the company HQ. If an airline decides to award a medal to someone, they won't go through a consultation process on PPRuNe to find out what the wannabes and ill-informed think. (Not saying you're either of those)

All of us want to know what happened to BA038. We will just have to wait until the AAIB publish its findings.

I'm not sure where you are going with the dead-stick approach analogy but from the viewpoint of a 'heavy' pilot, maximum use of the automatics is the way to go. No-one trains for double engine loss of thrust at 600' for what should be, to you, obvious reasons.

I would suggest 'wait and see' is the appropriate strategy.

[617SquadronDB]

Agree 100% They were handed an impossible situation and performed admirable.

Well done, lads.

[Conan The Barber]

'Wait and see', very wise I would suggest.

Yet most people seem quite happy to suggest the crew did affect the outcome in a positive manner, while having no indication that it is so, apart from the fact that nobody died.

Is it to be assumed that speculation is ok when it is for the purpose of patting ourselves on the back?

[sispanys ria]

Thanks for all your comments.
What I meant regarding the press conference is that following such events crews should be handled with care following the intensive stress and I'm really surprised they were asked to make a speech in front of cameras and microphones.

Regarding the use of automatisms I would agree in a normal situation, but in that case, without power, no automatism can keep the glide for long. The known result is that the aircraft AP disconnected at 108 kts which led to a high fpm fall (very close to a stall). Should the AP have disconnected at a slightly lower IAS, the aircraft would probably have entered a full stall. At such a low speed there is no way to control any flare and reduce the fpm before impact... I doubt any pilot would deliberately let the AP try to keep the glide at 108 kts without power, this is why I feel the crew was probably confused by the situation and didn't have time to take any action (not even an emergency call)

I see many people making well done comments, may I ask what was well done ? I insist, I'm not blaming the crew for anything, I would just like to understand if they are just an unfortunate crew or if they really acted as heroes... I suppose those who congratulate them should have ways to elaborate on this.
Thank you very much.

[davidash]

Perhaps Boeing/BA needs to answer why one of their state of the art aircraft virtually dropped out of the sky. I am sure that we will find no fault whatever on the part of the crew. It is staggering that we have an unexplained near disaster and still, after all this time, do not have any answers.
Perhaps if the failure had happened a bit further away from touchdown ( heaven forbid!) something would have been done by now. I am glad I don't have any planned trips on the 777 in the forseeable future!

[Rainboe]

I see many people making well done comments, may I ask what was well done ? I insist, I'm not blaming the crew for anything, I would just like to understand if they are just an unfortunate crew or if they really acted as heroes... I suppose those who congratulate them should have ways to elaborate on this.

And extremely very well done too. Rather than have to justify that, you should try and justify your carping comments that are becoming very tiring. No one doubts you are so clever and know so much better than big jet pilots who have multiple thousand hours time more than you. But have you considered in a BIG jet like a 777 recognising slowly the situation that at 700' that your engines are not responding to thrust demands? And you think you know the answer is to put the nose down, in a giant aeroplane, at minimum speed, and hope you still have the control authority (and perfect judgement) to pull out of this daft dive you have put 150 people into? This is not a Cessna! And you are not the expert you think you are! They couldn't have made it any nearer the runway. So why don't you just leave it alone? We all know you think you know better. You know bugger-all about big aeroplanes and don't understand inertia of this size of aeroplane. Your experience is in bizjets as the largest you know right? You might get away with that in a little jet from 700', not in a 777! You would be still being scraped off the underrun of 27R if you'd tried your little trick!

[sispanys ria]

Rainboe please don't give me words which are not mines. On the contrary of what you pretend, I'm not judging since as you mentioned i don't have any experience on such heavy aircrafts. But as you are congratulating the crew, you must have some good reasons which I'm just asking you to explain to me. I know the subject is sensitive and I'm really trying to express myself without irritating anybody.

As you said, heavy machines have inertia, meaning it's more difficult to change their path. I never said they should have pushed the nose into a steep dive, but what is sure according to their IAS and VS, is that they had a very steep angle probably resulting from an important loss of lift. I'm not elaborating on what they should have done but I'm just wondering if they simply had time to understand the situation and react accordingly. I'd believe most common pilots' reactions would have been to disconnect the AP before reaching a very dangerous 108 kts, this is why I feel they were taken by surprise.
I understand the inertia thing, but i still feel like a 120 IAS would give more flare authority to control the final fpm than at 108...
As I told Rainboe in PM, I used to perform a lot of dead stick landing training during my previous military career (one hour every two months over 10 years), that's why I'm so interested in this technical energy management issue.

In plain language:

1- I would appreciate if those who congratulate the crew for their action could politely elaborate on what precise actions they are referring to since as a simple unexperienced corporate pilot I don't have the thousands of cruise hours to understand the specific handling of heavy machines.

2- I share my feeling that the crew may have been surprised by the situation since I feel a normal reaction would have been to take control of the aircraft before the AP pulls on the nose till a dangerous 108 kts.
If some people here are convinced they would definitely have let the AP on even at 108 kts, they are more than welcome to explain me the reason of such a decision since I may learn something very important for my future experience. You can eventually consider this as an off BA038 related question since it concerns general handling.

Thank you very much for keeping a fair a and polite dialog even if some people may feel I didn't reach the technical maturity to post in this topic.

[Rainboe]

as a simple unexperienced corporate pilot I don't have the thousands of cruise hours to understand the specific handling of heavy machines.

You don't need thousands of cruise hours, but you DO need experience of handling large and heavy jets, not fighters and business jets, to understand the ramifications of so much inertia. You seem hung up on this glide thing. They were at some 3 lengths of the aeroplane altitude with minimal sub idle power. You seem to be wanting them to push the nose down to sustain speed? In an aeroplane that size, pray how would they pull out with no pitch power coupling and below minimum speed? Your idea is, to put it mildly, utterly daft. Yes, do that in your HS125 or little fighter, (if you insist it is a good idea), but not in an aeroplane of that scale.

You seem to have a weird fascination with trying to prove they did not do right and you know better! They stretched out, in a few seconds, a final desperate glide, far far better than you could dream. But you insist on knowing how to do it better! You're daft. They had much less than a minute to try and control a unique and out of the blue situation, and didn't they do well!

You will also get an ignore if you carry on with this bitching of yours any longer.

It's not the crew's job or the airline's job to produce any sort of accident report. When the authorities have something to say, they will say it, not because anonymous Ppruners demand it!

[M.Mouse]

I have refrained from entering what is a pointless debate about the actions of the crew when we all have the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of unlimited time to make calculations and explore ideas. However, Rainboe you are talking a great deal of rubbish about inertia and pitch/power couplings in your understandable desire to scupper sispanysis ria's irritating postings.

With the luxury of several attempts and knowing the scenario I have seen it proven in the simulator that it would have been possible to have reached the threshold of the runway under control. It took some interesting actions and the visual picture looked awful. I doubt any of us would have been able to achieve that outcome unrehearsed and with no prior knowledge of what was about to occur.

As a BA pilot I am grateful that whatever they did the result was no loss of life, almost no injury and just some injured pride having lost a hull.

Second guessing the crew and criticising their actions from the comfort of our armchairs is as pointless as it is distasteful.

[sispanys ria]

To Rambo Rainboe

As I can see you cannot behave as a gentleman I will no more discuss on this topic.

You insist on charging me with wrong intentions while I explained in plain language that i wasn't trying to judge or even comment the facts (which by the way are unknown to me). Instead of answering calmly and elaborating you became vulgar and didn't provide any technical comment to sustain your analyze. You said they manage to fly further than I could in my dreams. I'm fine with this but I would appreciate if you could elaborate on how in general you should handle such situations on heavy jets since this is what interests me. You say they handled the plane pretty well, but all I see with my unexperienced eyes is a plane that flew by itself until it initiated a stall. So be kind and teach me in what way they had no other choice. I was not blaming them and i was not saying what they should have done (what part of this message can't you get ?), I was basically asking why the conventional handling of a deadstick landing cannot work on big jets and I was expecting elaborated answers from experienced people like you.
All I got is irritated comments, charging me of god knows what and of course not bringing any new light on the facts that you consider beyond my competencies.

Well thank you for the warm welcome and your open mind. I always believed experience was something people should share but I obviously don't deserve your help on this.

Enjoy your retirement while I'll keep on learning my job from others.

[overstress]

sispanys ria

There are other things we could be occupying our time with. No-one trains for this on heavy jets as it is 'negative training' and is not mandated by the authorities.

If the same situation re-occurred then I doubt that any other twin jet pilot would immediately disconnect the a/p and bunt for the undershoot.

I could imagine that a single-engine jet pilot would view things differently, but it isn't relevant here as this was a very big twin.

[Rainboe]

However, Rainboe you are talking a great deal of rubbish about inertia and pitch/power couplings in your understandable desire to scupper sispanysis ria's irritating postings.

With the luxury of several attempts and knowing the scenario I have seen it proven in the simulator that it would have been possible to have reached the threshold of the runway under control. It took some interesting actions and the visual picture looked awful.

Well I'd love to hear more. What a terrific opportunity for a learning experience for big jet pilots. I have to say from 18 years 747 operating, losing effective power at 700', I would be loathe to put the nose down with barely enough height to pull up again, with simultaneous loss of the trim effect of power to cope with as well. So as what I have said is apparently incorrect (and what the only crew to be so affected actually did), would you be so kind as to expand on what you have seen and how it could possibly have been better handled? Would any pilot, with engines unexpectedly failed, at that altitude actually throw the nose down. I don't see how after the loss of energy from those engines from the time of failure sometime above 800', they could have got the aeroplane the extra distance to the threshold no matter how they played it, even at 108kts. I would be most interested in hearing how it should be done!