BA038 (B777) Thread
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carried on flying the aircraft right down to the ground
A very interesting CRM situation totally unexplored by the report. Why discussing it should be considered as attacking the crew?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having listened to that ATC transmission and watched the interview with the remarkably humble Peter Burkill on the BBC website, I just wanted to say that I really do take my hat off to all you guys who work in professional aviation, including ATCOs as well as pilots. The skill and dedication, evident here in what was obviously a distressing event for all, is simply second-to-none. 
As for S.F.L.Y, I suggest you take step back and look at the 'bigger picture' (if you are capable of such lateral thinking). And listen to that recording again and again until you have finally digested how quickly things unfolded. You were presumably "disappointed" too by the fact he got the flight number wrong. The mind boggles.
As for S.F.L.Y, I suggest you take step back and look at the 'bigger picture' (if you are capable of such lateral thinking). And listen to that recording again and again until you have finally digested how quickly things unfolded. You were presumably "disappointed" too by the fact he got the flight number wrong. The mind boggles.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having no experience on this type or indeed any FBW aircraft I have no idea of the relative "feel" of the controls A/P engaged or disengaged.
Given the situation they found themselves in , I don't find it too surprising that they could have missed this, assuming the control feel is similar.
On something like a B737 it would be fairly self evident , as the controls (even in CWS) do not feel the same, and anyhow the aircraft would have wandered off on a tangent, but with FBW, gust alleviation, and all these other boxes of tricks between you & the hardware ? perhaps someone experienced on type can tell us.
Given the situation they found themselves in , I don't find it too surprising that they could have missed this, assuming the control feel is similar.
On something like a B737 it would be fairly self evident , as the controls (even in CWS) do not feel the same, and anyhow the aircraft would have wandered off on a tangent, but with FBW, gust alleviation, and all these other boxes of tricks between you & the hardware ? perhaps someone experienced on type can tell us.
Quote: ""if it had come down moments earlier, it would have landed on buildings ect " why do they do this, whats the point""
To sensationalise a rather mundane answer to a serious problem I should imagine.
To sensationalise a rather mundane answer to a serious problem I should imagine.
Quote SFLY- "It clearly says in black and white that the FO omitted to disconnect the AP, which is quite different from a conscious decision to keep it engaged"
Faced with 700 feet of air before bellyflopping onto houses below, it may well be easy to "overlook" disconnecting the autopilot if one is fighting to keep the aircraft airbourne.
Faced with 700 feet of air before bellyflopping onto houses below, it may well be easy to "overlook" disconnecting the autopilot if one is fighting to keep the aircraft airbourne.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anyone with the engineering data that backs up the tube trimming exercise? Because I see it as a thermal solution to a mechanical problem. When the oil's cold, (let-down, cold-soaked cruise,) it will melt icebergs ahead of the Titanic?
The problem is defined as Ice related; no new research is available to mitigate what is demonstrably a potentially life threatening occurrence.
Of course the tubes are the bottleneck, they still are. An elegant "solution" to be sure, but for which problem?
Why not a wet particle separator upstream the "heater"?
bear
The problem is defined as Ice related; no new research is available to mitigate what is demonstrably a potentially life threatening occurrence.
Of course the tubes are the bottleneck, they still are. An elegant "solution" to be sure, but for which problem?
Why not a wet particle separator upstream the "heater"?
bear
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statements referred to were almost certainly gleaned from post-accident interviews with the pilot concerned. The AAIB aren't going to publish word-for-word stuff like that, are they?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the final report is now 'official' and we can all now start to pick it apart if we choose. I stated very early on in this thread that I didn't like the idea of the crew electing to raise the flaps a notch. This could ONLY cause a descent rate greater than what existed at the time. Raising the flaps that close to the ground is a 'no-no' in my book. I've been in an airplane when the flaps were raised by mistake, and believe me that "sinking" feeling is one you do NOT want to feel in an airplane close to the ground. And we were at take-off power. We did not hit the ground, but the 'pucker' factor was something else !!
I feel that while they might not have made the runway, the descent rate would have been less and consequently, the damge less, had they left the flaps alone. However, being as how no one was injured in this accident, there really isn't much more we can argue about now except if one is ever faced with this situation again in the future, I hope they will NOT raise the flaps to try and gain a little extra distance.
OK.....let the 'flames' begin.
I feel that while they might not have made the runway, the descent rate would have been less and consequently, the damge less, had they left the flaps alone. However, being as how no one was injured in this accident, there really isn't much more we can argue about now except if one is ever faced with this situation again in the future, I hope they will NOT raise the flaps to try and gain a little extra distance.
OK.....let the 'flames' begin.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's?
SFLY
I've followed your comments on a number of threads and all I can ask is; 'what's your problem with BA?'
I'm not a pilot, my expertise is communication and the subtext of all that you write leads me to the conclusion that you have personal issues with BA.
Did they turn you down? If so, let it go.
I've followed your comments on a number of threads and all I can ask is; 'what's your problem with BA?'
I'm not a pilot, my expertise is communication and the subtext of all that you write leads me to the conclusion that you have personal issues with BA.
Did they turn you down? If so, let it go.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oxon
Age: 92
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StainesFS post 2869
I agree with your sentiments about gongs and honours for doing one's job but I seem to remember that years ago when a BOAC 707 crashed at LHR shortly after t/o the stewardess was awarded a posthumous George Medal and John Davies was given an MBE for his air traffic controlling of the situation.
I agree with your sentiments about gongs and honours for doing one's job but I seem to remember that years ago when a BOAC 707 crashed at LHR shortly after t/o the stewardess was awarded a posthumous George Medal and John Davies was given an MBE for his air traffic controlling of the situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DCATE
I learned never to raise flap on G/A unitl Pos ROC and then slowly. I learned not to chase Glideslope without engines as well. But I've never flown anything bigger than my house. I too posted that sink would follow a retracting flap. No flames from me. However, I also learned not to criticise success. This whole deal is mx.
bear
I learned never to raise flap on G/A unitl Pos ROC and then slowly. I learned not to chase Glideslope without engines as well. But I've never flown anything bigger than my house. I too posted that sink would follow a retracting flap. No flames from me. However, I also learned not to criticise success. This whole deal is mx.
bear
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-ATE, in the report they seem to think that had the flaps remained @ 30 they would have landed 50m sooner, and ploughed through various antennae.
The effect of this has not been calculated, but it is being assumed substantial damage may have been caused to the airframe.
So, like so many aspects of this approach, including the "fixation" of some that they reduced below best L/D, missed the autopilot etc etc, generally held wisdom was not recognised/ acted upon, but the final conclusion ? Result !
So WTH ?
The effect of this has not been calculated, but it is being assumed substantial damage may have been caused to the airframe.
So, like so many aspects of this approach, including the "fixation" of some that they reduced below best L/D, missed the autopilot etc etc, generally held wisdom was not recognised/ acted upon, but the final conclusion ? Result !
So WTH ?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Whereever I lay my hat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-ATE
Quoting from the report:
The report also states that if they would have touched down with flaps 30 they would probably have taken out the ILS antenna with a high chance of heavier damage.
Don't you think you have to take into account the fact that flaps were reduced only from 30 deg to 25 deg? I guess this would mainly reduce drag while marginally reducing lift. It would of course be a different story if you would reduce flaps from for example flaps 15 to flaps 10.
Quoting from the report:
The aircraft manufacturer carried out an analysis of the final approach of G‑YMMM’s accident flight to establish the effect of selecting flap 25 at around 240 ft agl. The analysis concluded that, had the crew left the flaps at flap 30, the aircraft would have touched down about 51 m (168 ft) short of the actual touchdown on the accident flight, still within the airfield boundary.
Don't you think you have to take into account the fact that flaps were reduced only from 30 deg to 25 deg? I guess this would mainly reduce drag while marginally reducing lift. It would of course be a different story if you would reduce flaps from for example flaps 15 to flaps 10.
DC-ATE,
Which aircraft and what do you mean by 'raised'?
Not the conclusion of the accident report.
On the big jets I've flown the go-around procedure is:
Max thrust
Flap 20 (thats TWO notches up from the land setting of 30 and is executed IMMEDIATELY)
Never noticed any 'sink'.
I've been in an airplane when the flaps were raised by mistake, and believe me that "sinking" feeling is one you do NOT want to feel in an airplane close to the ground. And we were at take-off power. We did not hit the ground, but the 'pucker' factor was something else !!
if one is ever faced with this situation again in the future, I hope they will NOT raise the flaps to try and gain a little extra distance.
On the big jets I've flown the go-around procedure is:
Max thrust
Flap 20 (thats TWO notches up from the land setting of 30 and is executed IMMEDIATELY)
Never noticed any 'sink'.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no issues with BA. None. OK, I'll admit, I don't care for the F/A's red, white and blue striped shirts. Minor point.
I don't agree with S.F.L.Y.'s focu on 'omission'. If you plan to fly a visual, hand flown, approach, and get distracted and don't turn the A/P off, your actions fit the definition of an omission. Big deal.
As a pilot I'm very disappointed the pilot corps will learn nothing from this report regarding maintaining Vref, or allowing the a/c, IMO, to prematurely slow to achieve the best glide performance.
Also, no explanation about the value of retracting flaps at Vref, as opposed to a much lower speed, and the performance increase(?) that might be achieved.
And the pushover at 200'? What impact did that have on the a/c's sinkrate? Would the next crew that this happens to be better off staying at stickshaker or pushing over at 200' to stop the stickshaker? How much altitude does an airliner need to achieve an increase in airspeed to offset the increased sinkrate?
Yes, the crew was in a desperate situation. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't research their actions, granting them some benefit of doubt due to the nature of the event, to figure out what the appropriate actions are.
Our profession demands a critical analysis of events to help generate improved outcomes in the future.
I don't agree with S.F.L.Y.'s focu on 'omission'. If you plan to fly a visual, hand flown, approach, and get distracted and don't turn the A/P off, your actions fit the definition of an omission. Big deal.
As a pilot I'm very disappointed the pilot corps will learn nothing from this report regarding maintaining Vref, or allowing the a/c, IMO, to prematurely slow to achieve the best glide performance.
Also, no explanation about the value of retracting flaps at Vref, as opposed to a much lower speed, and the performance increase(?) that might be achieved.
And the pushover at 200'? What impact did that have on the a/c's sinkrate? Would the next crew that this happens to be better off staying at stickshaker or pushing over at 200' to stop the stickshaker? How much altitude does an airliner need to achieve an increase in airspeed to offset the increased sinkrate?
Yes, the crew was in a desperate situation. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't research their actions, granting them some benefit of doubt due to the nature of the event, to figure out what the appropriate actions are.
Our profession demands a critical analysis of events to help generate improved outcomes in the future.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil,
Two different scenarios -
On a g/a, as you stated, you're increasing thrust. At the same time you are also rotating to an increased pitch attitude. A sink is never noticed.
The other situation is with fixed power, pitch, at very low airspeed, and then retracting flaps.
Two different scenarios -
On a g/a, as you stated, you're increasing thrust. At the same time you are also rotating to an increased pitch attitude. A sink is never noticed.
The other situation is with fixed power, pitch, at very low airspeed, and then retracting flaps.
i have followed this thread for most of the 2 years but sorry i cannot remember if re-flying the same flight in the sim but without raising the flaps a notch got them on the runway ok?
did it or did it not please?
thanks
did it or did it not please?
thanks
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misd
From what I have followed that seems to be the case...a bit of 'there but for the grace...' followed by, 'how can we learn from this and improve?'.
As far as I have seen SLFY's comments were more postural, i.e. 'I would have done xyz, aren't I so clever'. Perhaps not his/her intentions but if so some classes in humility wouldn't go amiss.
From what I have followed that seems to be the case...a bit of 'there but for the grace...' followed by, 'how can we learn from this and improve?'.
As far as I have seen SLFY's comments were more postural, i.e. 'I would have done xyz, aren't I so clever'. Perhaps not his/her intentions but if so some classes in humility wouldn't go amiss.