BA038 (B777) Thread
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blythy, when asked about increasing the glideslope, admittedly mainly for noise reasons, one airline manager said, “The short answer to that is no, the aircraft is stable at 3 degrees in that intermediate configuration and just about idle thrust, so it’s about as quiet as it can possibly be and about as fuel efficient. If we steepen the approach we are actually going to have make a dirtier configuration and probably use a higher power, so it’s not feasible on a fuel savings benefit, it’s not good from a noise point of view and therefore there are no benefits from our point view.”
No doubt depends on the a/c type. That airline is a mid range operator. No 330, 340, 380, 777, 747s. etc. But can’t see any airport offering different glideslopes for different a/c anytime this side of the 22nd century.
By the way, who actually paid or will pay for the cost of the lost a/c seeing as it was Boeing’s or Rolls Royce’s (?) ‘fault’? BA, Boeing or a leasing company? I have lost the will to look back far enough in this thread to find the answer.
No doubt depends on the a/c type. That airline is a mid range operator. No 330, 340, 380, 777, 747s. etc. But can’t see any airport offering different glideslopes for different a/c anytime this side of the 22nd century.
By the way, who actually paid or will pay for the cost of the lost a/c seeing as it was Boeing’s or Rolls Royce’s (?) ‘fault’? BA, Boeing or a leasing company? I have lost the will to look back far enough in this thread to find the answer.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337. Agree fully with your thoughts on stabalized approach. Further to that, if you're still scrambling to get in the slot below 1000', you're not focused on the big pic. Your focus is tunneled to something that should have been put to rest before 1000' and you'll miss one of the myriad little things that can help to let light through the cheese.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who actually paid or will pay for the cost of the lost a/c seeing as it was Boeing’s or Rolls Royce’s (?) ‘fault’?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BarbiesBoyfriend - has this figured out. I always carried 5 to 10 knots extra speed "just in case". When are you 'professional' pilots going to realize this is NOT an exact science?! I don't care how many thousands of hours one has. Most of that time for 'heavy' drivers is in cruise anyway.....means nothing. It's the time below ten thousand feet "where the action is" that really counts.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny business this aviation thing !!
There are times when too much attention to detail will kill you and there are times when too little will kill you - same with speed on the approach - the secret is to know when to apply detail and speed.
+5-10 knots doesn't mean your destabilized but going into a short runway means you need to fly the numbers to meet the performance.
A long time ago I learned to respect the amount of hard work put in by people who did the data.
There are times when too much attention to detail will kill you and there are times when too little will kill you - same with speed on the approach - the secret is to know when to apply detail and speed.
+5-10 knots doesn't mean your destabilized but going into a short runway means you need to fly the numbers to meet the performance.
A long time ago I learned to respect the amount of hard work put in by people who did the data.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DC-ATE
Thanks for that!
I suspected it wasn't just little old me.
You know what, not long before we land, wait for it............
I slow down.
btw I agree with you re hours etc. I got about 10,000 on short haul, regional ops. (big deal
)
20,000 on long haul = 15,000 reading the papers!
Thanks for that!
I suspected it wasn't just little old me.
You know what, not long before we land, wait for it............
I slow down.
btw I agree with you re hours etc. I got about 10,000 on short haul, regional ops. (big deal
)20,000 on long haul = 15,000 reading the papers!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, BarbiesBoyfriend, good luck in your career. You will make it to retirement with your attitude. Me.....I already made it.....twenty years ago. Glad I'm outta this racket !!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worcester
Age: 59
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few points that some people are struggling with so I am going to try my best to answer them:
Some people are wondering why I say there were 153 souls on board the BA38. There was a pregnant lady on board, I was told months later she successfully gave birth to her baby.
I think it was good reporting by the BBC. It was a quote from myself that the BBC was reporting on that stated that I saw the impact point being ‘catering buildings, tube station and petrol station at Hatton Cross’ when the descent rate was 1800 fpm before reducing the flaps. Therefore he was simply stating what I had thought was fact. If the rollbacks had happened moments earlier, then yes, those buildings would have been IMHO in ‘fact’ impacted. Those images of where I thought the impact point was going to be helped focus my mind on finding a solution.
Thanks for your continued support AO; I like the analogy.
I’m not an ‘ATCO’; but I can let you know that the tower controller did receive recognition from the Royal Aeronautical Society and was awarded the ‘The President’s Award’ in Dec 2008. The President’s Award is ‘an award to recognise an individual who has displayed outstanding skill and professionalism in the field of aviation and aeronautics, especially in adverse circumstances’.
I know this has been answered since posting it; but to re-iterate from the report;
P.140
(impact point is the rear axle of the main landing gear which has approx 26m of aircraft in front of it and 35m behind it)
Actions of the Commander - 2nd paragraph
“The action of reducing the flap setting was prompt and resulted in a reduction of the aerodynamic drag, with minimal effect on the aircraft stall speed; it moved the point of initial ground contact about 50m towards the runway threshold. Had the flaps remained at flap 30, the touchdown would have been just before the ILS antenna, but still within the airfield boundary. The effects of contact with the ILS antenna are unknown but such contact would probably have led to more substantial structural damage to the aircraft.”
Boeing test pilots spent many a month/year flying this approach again and again in the sim…. They never achieved a better result in terms of distance covered with the conditions we had on the day. When they left the flaps at F30, they could only best get to within 51m of MMM; still 10m behind the antennae. I would not want to hit those at 108kts, would you? I was faced with a life threatening situation and this report states that I achieved a better result than if I had left the flaps alone, end of.
If you have an incident that requires you to think and react, instead of remembering a checklist, then best of luck to you. I know I am able to think positively and clearly in a stressful environment whilst facing death head on, it wasn’t in the books and never will be; but please don’t make out that it was wrong.
What can I say…. Thanks for sticking up for me!
Cheers
This one is best put to any Boeing test pilots; as they have analysed this at length; please see my previous answer to ‘DC-ATE’.
I would also like to see written down the best way to achieve the optimum outcome.
As Boeing couldn’t produce a better result; I would say perhaps;
Leave A/P engaged until hearing the “Airspeed Low” warning. Thus maintaining G/S. Then reduce the flaps.
This worked.
If detected at an early stage then do something about it earlier; ie reduce the flap earlier.
At 1500’ agl for instance, you’d have a chance of clearing obstacles by reducing straight to F20 whilst you have the speed. Keeping F30 would not get you as far, ask the manufacturer.
On this BA38 approach though, I would not have wanted to keep F30 as it has been proved would have impacted on the ILS antennae, causing untold damage and death. The best outcome for the BA38 was no deaths, to achieve that, it was necessary to reduce flaps to F25 and so avoided the last obstacle. Had I have known that at 500ft we were not going to get power back I would have selected less flap straight away… that’s easy to see why now, but put yourself in my seat at the time with no knowledge of rollbacks or 63 million seconds (thanks AO) to think about it, and you’d have come to the same conclusion I’m sure.
I have heard from other ‘Ppruner’s’ who have stated that he/she had achieved flying ‘BA38’ on to the runway in the sim, some by leaving the flaps at F30 and others had changed them to F25. When I asked what the parameters used were (ie height of rollback assumption, power remaining, wind strength used at 500’ and airfield etc etc) there were no concrete answers.
Please see my postings above with regards to Boeing’s best achievement and p140 in the final report for F30.
At this stage I am also unaware if the original testing by line pilots (who claim to have got to the runway) involved had the knowledge of losing engines at 720’ agl or 430’ agl. To re-iterate; 720’ was when the first rollback occurred, and 430’ was when we noticed that we had power problems. I would find it hard to see how a line pilot would have managed to reach the runway if the test pilots couldn’t if they started proceedings at 430ft. Therefore I am not saying that those who have achieved the runway, didn’t, simply that if they did, at what height were they aware they had a problem and the parameters used?
Not sure what you’re trying to get at here SFLY…para 1, you state that flying at best L/D speed F30 will get you further than min speed F25. Para 2, you state it was better than doing nothing. Again, Boeing didn’t get within 51m of BA38 F25 ‘hanging on the stall’ speed, when they tried F30 ‘best L/D’ speed, min speed or Vref speed or any other speed, standing on their head or in boxer shorts(!), they did everything in their power to test every permutation. Therefore I appreciate you are thinking that there could have been a better outcome if it had been flown in whatever way you are suggesting, but there isn’t, if there was the test pilots would have got it.
Yes, I’m disappointed too, that there are no graphs/figures to show the distances and performance achieved at differing configs and speeds. All we know is;
F25 min manoeuvre speed = threshold – 330m.
F30 (at varying speeds) = threshold – 381m at best.
I know where I’d rather have impacted, no deaths, no fire.
SFLY... No matter how many figures and theories you want to come up with; you must accept that the manufacturers who produce all those figures, have not come up with any better results. It’s now time you believe the facts presented to you and stop getting fired up before you give yourself an ulcer.
I voiced this concerm some time back on this thread … wondering what the next chap/ess would do if a rollback occurred at similar heights, now that there is a procedure to follow. I’m not aware of any min height for this procedure, so if another crew were to continue without idling for 30secs they would be guilty of not following SOPs. However, if you are still getting some thrust at that height you need ALL you can get, not throttle back. Common sense would say to ignore the SOPs in this instance, but that’s now against company policy. I’m glad I wasn’t guilty of neglecting SOPs and bringing down a £160m a/c!
CVR? Not much on it! No swearing (my wife was shocked by this), no blaspheming or saying goodbye to anyone (verbal or thoughts in flight). It was obvious that there was no time for normal comms or discussions amongst the crew, so none of us wasted time verbalising anything. We just had to get on with the job in hand, smartish.
The AAIB investigator has told me (and is happy to be quoted) that had I have taken control he would have slated me for it in the report; as I should have been using my captaincy to better use by overseeing and managing the situation, which I did. He commented that because I had a competent F/O that I was right to use his experience to good use. Had I tried to take control, this would have taken vital seconds and I probably wouldn’t have had time to get my ‘hand’ in before impact.
For a variety of reasons I chose to accept the voluntary redundancy package offered to BA pilots in May 09 and left BA in Aug 09. Although I’ve heard yet more rumours in BA that I had been laid off, this is not true. I applied for VR and received it. I am looking for work and have found that some potential employers are not able to interview me until the final report had been released, which is fair enough. There are airlines actively recruiting on the 777 for both F/O and DEC positions (I have applications in for both positions) so I would like to think that I will be able to get an interview soon. I have another 20 years of employment ahead of me and as flying is a passion for me, I hope I will be able to spend this time flying.
MaynardGKeynes Read the report
P138 Section 2 and 2.1 This will give you all the info on the flight crew and you will see that we have been vindicated and our actions prevented a worse outcome. This was not pilot error, no matter how much it appears that you would like it to be!
I have had to spend the last 2 years reading and hearing people, on forums, in crew rooms and on the street, pull apart my actions, claiming they were the wrong thing to do, claiming I shouldn't have done x,y,z. Some saying I froze or had chickened out as I "did not land the plane". I performed to the best of my ability and had no fatalities. I did not chose to have an accident and if I could turn the clocks back I'd have gone sick for that trip, but I can't turn the clock back and I happened to be the Captain involved. I know there have been a lot of supporters of me and my actions (even though a lot of the supporters have never met me). Sadly I also know that there have been a lot of people quick to blacken my name and also to belittle whatever decisions my wife made immediately after the crash - there are reasons behind this and unless you know them it is unfair to make such harsh criticism of her. The world is a cruel place and can deal some tough hands sometimes, but don't kick an innocent man when he's been proven to be innocent!
Do people not realise that wild accusations can affect a person's career? If I have learnt anything from this it is that before making a public comment, I should think about what implication my words may mean to another. I have been privy to some of the report for a long time now and have had to keep my silence when reading some posts. To be involved in such a high profile incident is not something I would wish on anyone.
Please, the report is now final. My actions have been shown to have improved the situation, therefore, on the day I behaved as well as any airline could have hoped one of their pilots to act. I was proud to be trained and to have worked at BA and now hope that I will be proud to work for another airline. If the AAIB can vindicate me then maybe now the negative comments directed toward me from some can halt. The report is now finalised and I look forward to getting on with my life.
Some people are wondering why I say there were 153 souls on board the BA38. There was a pregnant lady on board, I was told months later she successfully gave birth to her baby.
Arthur R 2856
“It seemed some good reporting, up until the reporter started with " if it had come down moments earlier, it would have landed on buildings ect " why do they do this, whats the point. [ ]… We don't need to hear about if's, they did not happen.”
“It seemed some good reporting, up until the reporter started with " if it had come down moments earlier, it would have landed on buildings ect " why do they do this, whats the point. [ ]… We don't need to hear about if's, they did not happen.”
Ancient observer
“Rudder,
you are right. We've had 63,072,000 secs, approx., to figure out what to do. The pilots had circa 35 sec.s to figure out what to do.
As PB said in his BBC interview, he would now like to have another 20 years flying. We should be helping him do this, not sniping.”
“Rudder,
you are right. We've had 63,072,000 secs, approx., to figure out what to do. The pilots had circa 35 sec.s to figure out what to do.
As PB said in his BBC interview, he would now like to have another 20 years flying. We should be helping him do this, not sniping.”
StainesSF
“can I ask any Heathrow ATCOs who are PPRuNe members whether any official recognition was given to the staff involved (particularly the male controller principally featured)? This was, after all, a job well-done.”
“can I ask any Heathrow ATCOs who are PPRuNe members whether any official recognition was given to the staff involved (particularly the male controller principally featured)? This was, after all, a job well-done.”
DC-ATE
“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.”
“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.”
I know this has been answered since posting it; but to re-iterate from the report;
P.140
(impact point is the rear axle of the main landing gear which has approx 26m of aircraft in front of it and 35m behind it)
Actions of the Commander - 2nd paragraph
“The action of reducing the flap setting was prompt and resulted in a reduction of the aerodynamic drag, with minimal effect on the aircraft stall speed; it moved the point of initial ground contact about 50m towards the runway threshold. Had the flaps remained at flap 30, the touchdown would have been just before the ILS antenna, but still within the airfield boundary. The effects of contact with the ILS antenna are unknown but such contact would probably have led to more substantial structural damage to the aircraft.”
Boeing test pilots spent many a month/year flying this approach again and again in the sim…. They never achieved a better result in terms of distance covered with the conditions we had on the day. When they left the flaps at F30, they could only best get to within 51m of MMM; still 10m behind the antennae. I would not want to hit those at 108kts, would you? I was faced with a life threatening situation and this report states that I achieved a better result than if I had left the flaps alone, end of.
If you have an incident that requires you to think and react, instead of remembering a checklist, then best of luck to you. I know I am able to think positively and clearly in a stressful environment whilst facing death head on, it wasn’t in the books and never will be; but please don’t make out that it was wrong.
CaptPlaystation
“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 ?”
“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 ?”
What can I say…. Thanks for sticking up for me!
Cheers
Misd-agin
“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.”
“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.”
This one is best put to any Boeing test pilots; as they have analysed this at length; please see my previous answer to ‘DC-ATE’.
I would also like to see written down the best way to achieve the optimum outcome.
As Boeing couldn’t produce a better result; I would say perhaps;
Leave A/P engaged until hearing the “Airspeed Low” warning. Thus maintaining G/S. Then reduce the flaps.
This worked.
If detected at an early stage then do something about it earlier; ie reduce the flap earlier.
At 1500’ agl for instance, you’d have a chance of clearing obstacles by reducing straight to F20 whilst you have the speed. Keeping F30 would not get you as far, ask the manufacturer.
On this BA38 approach though, I would not have wanted to keep F30 as it has been proved would have impacted on the ILS antennae, causing untold damage and death. The best outcome for the BA38 was no deaths, to achieve that, it was necessary to reduce flaps to F25 and so avoided the last obstacle. Had I have known that at 500ft we were not going to get power back I would have selected less flap straight away… that’s easy to see why now, but put yourself in my seat at the time with no knowledge of rollbacks or 63 million seconds (thanks AO) to think about it, and you’d have come to the same conclusion I’m sure.
ROG747
“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?”
“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?”
Please see my postings above with regards to Boeing’s best achievement and p140 in the final report for F30.
At this stage I am also unaware if the original testing by line pilots (who claim to have got to the runway) involved had the knowledge of losing engines at 720’ agl or 430’ agl. To re-iterate; 720’ was when the first rollback occurred, and 430’ was when we noticed that we had power problems. I would find it hard to see how a line pilot would have managed to reach the runway if the test pilots couldn’t if they started proceedings at 430ft. Therefore I am not saying that those who have achieved the runway, didn’t, simply that if they did, at what height were they aware they had a problem and the parameters used?
SFLY
“Retracting flaps from 30 to 25 improves the aircraft L/D "global" configuration, but you still need to fly the right speed to get the best of this new configuration. Flying best L/D speed at flaps 30 will take you further than flying minimum speed with flaps 25.
The report clearly demonstrate that it was better than doing nothing, but it sadly fails to show what would have been the benefits of controlling the airspeed.”
“Retracting flaps from 30 to 25 improves the aircraft L/D "global" configuration, but you still need to fly the right speed to get the best of this new configuration. Flying best L/D speed at flaps 30 will take you further than flying minimum speed with flaps 25.
The report clearly demonstrate that it was better than doing nothing, but it sadly fails to show what would have been the benefits of controlling the airspeed.”
Not sure what you’re trying to get at here SFLY…para 1, you state that flying at best L/D speed F30 will get you further than min speed F25. Para 2, you state it was better than doing nothing. Again, Boeing didn’t get within 51m of BA38 F25 ‘hanging on the stall’ speed, when they tried F30 ‘best L/D’ speed, min speed or Vref speed or any other speed, standing on their head or in boxer shorts(!), they did everything in their power to test every permutation. Therefore I appreciate you are thinking that there could have been a better outcome if it had been flown in whatever way you are suggesting, but there isn’t, if there was the test pilots would have got it.
Yes, I’m disappointed too, that there are no graphs/figures to show the distances and performance achieved at differing configs and speeds. All we know is;
F25 min manoeuvre speed = threshold – 330m.
F30 (at varying speeds) = threshold – 381m at best.
I know where I’d rather have impacted, no deaths, no fire.
SFLY... No matter how many figures and theories you want to come up with; you must accept that the manufacturers who produce all those figures, have not come up with any better results. It’s now time you believe the facts presented to you and stop getting fired up before you give yourself an ulcer.
ROG747
“The procedure called for the thrust levers to be set to idle for 30 seconds,
after which each engine thrust lever is moved to max thrust to ensure the restriction has cleared.
oh....
30 seconds....? erm like you have 30 seconds to wait when your are 450' AGL”
“The procedure called for the thrust levers to be set to idle for 30 seconds,
after which each engine thrust lever is moved to max thrust to ensure the restriction has cleared.
oh....
30 seconds....? erm like you have 30 seconds to wait when your are 450' AGL”
Pettifogger
“Anyone baying for the CVR, forget it. The crew probably swore, said good-bye to their loved ones, before they knew they were going to make it. What do you expect?”
“Anyone baying for the CVR, forget it. The crew probably swore, said good-bye to their loved ones, before they knew they were going to make it. What do you expect?”
The AAIB investigator has told me (and is happy to be quoted) that had I have taken control he would have slated me for it in the report; as I should have been using my captaincy to better use by overseeing and managing the situation, which I did. He commented that because I had a competent F/O that I was right to use his experience to good use. Had I tried to take control, this would have taken vital seconds and I probably wouldn’t have had time to get my ‘hand’ in before impact.
Willie Everlearn
“The CBC here in Canada are reporting that the crew of this flight have been off duty since the accident and the Captain "is looking for work".”
“The CBC here in Canada are reporting that the crew of this flight have been off duty since the accident and the Captain "is looking for work".”
MaynardGKeynes
Isn't there a fuel cutoff switch in the B777 cockpit? Is it clear beyond any doubt that the crew didn't hit the switch by mistake? Would such an event be something that the "black box" would definitely have recorded? With all the exotic explanations being offered, isn't it just possible that the investigators have overlooked the obvious? Just asking....
Isn't there a fuel cutoff switch in the B777 cockpit? Is it clear beyond any doubt that the crew didn't hit the switch by mistake? Would such an event be something that the "black box" would definitely have recorded? With all the exotic explanations being offered, isn't it just possible that the investigators have overlooked the obvious? Just asking....
MaynardGKeynes
Why did it not happen earlier in the flight? To me, this is just too much of a bit of luck to have been pure happenstance. It suggests human error, possibly pilot error. But what?
Why did it not happen earlier in the flight? To me, this is just too much of a bit of luck to have been pure happenstance. It suggests human error, possibly pilot error. But what?
P138 Section 2 and 2.1 This will give you all the info on the flight crew and you will see that we have been vindicated and our actions prevented a worse outcome. This was not pilot error, no matter how much it appears that you would like it to be!
I have had to spend the last 2 years reading and hearing people, on forums, in crew rooms and on the street, pull apart my actions, claiming they were the wrong thing to do, claiming I shouldn't have done x,y,z. Some saying I froze or had chickened out as I "did not land the plane". I performed to the best of my ability and had no fatalities. I did not chose to have an accident and if I could turn the clocks back I'd have gone sick for that trip, but I can't turn the clock back and I happened to be the Captain involved. I know there have been a lot of supporters of me and my actions (even though a lot of the supporters have never met me). Sadly I also know that there have been a lot of people quick to blacken my name and also to belittle whatever decisions my wife made immediately after the crash - there are reasons behind this and unless you know them it is unfair to make such harsh criticism of her. The world is a cruel place and can deal some tough hands sometimes, but don't kick an innocent man when he's been proven to be innocent!
Do people not realise that wild accusations can affect a person's career? If I have learnt anything from this it is that before making a public comment, I should think about what implication my words may mean to another. I have been privy to some of the report for a long time now and have had to keep my silence when reading some posts. To be involved in such a high profile incident is not something I would wish on anyone.
Please, the report is now final. My actions have been shown to have improved the situation, therefore, on the day I behaved as well as any airline could have hoped one of their pilots to act. I was proud to be trained and to have worked at BA and now hope that I will be proud to work for another airline. If the AAIB can vindicate me then maybe now the negative comments directed toward me from some can halt. The report is now finalised and I look forward to getting on with my life.
Last edited by Mmmayday38; 11th Feb 2010 at 11:33. Reason: Forgot the year I left BA! Spelling mistake
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete
Very well said.
Your participation on this thread has been restrained and highly commendable.
I, along with many of your ex-colleagues at BA, wish you the VERY best for the future.
I hope that the publication of the final AAIB report, which fully vindicates the actions of you, John and Connor on the day can finally bring some closure to this for you especially.
I sincerely hope that the near future will see you with your just rewards and that a suitable position for someone of your experience! and integrity will be shortly forthcoming.
All the best
PM inbound.
Very well said.
Your participation on this thread has been restrained and highly commendable.
I, along with many of your ex-colleagues at BA, wish you the VERY best for the future.
I hope that the publication of the final AAIB report, which fully vindicates the actions of you, John and Connor on the day can finally bring some closure to this for you especially.
I sincerely hope that the near future will see you with your just rewards and that a suitable position for someone of your experience! and integrity will be shortly forthcoming.
All the best
PM inbound.
Second Law
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wirral
Age: 77
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmayday,
I would be very happy to fly as SLF with you at the sharp end anytime, any place.
The very best of luck with your applications.
Them as can do. Them as likely can't, make sly comments ........... errrr sorry, dyslexia creeping in.
CW
I would be very happy to fly as SLF with you at the sharp end anytime, any place.
The very best of luck with your applications.
Them as can do. Them as likely can't, make sly comments ........... errrr sorry, dyslexia creeping in.
CW
Last edited by chris weston; 10th Feb 2010 at 19:12.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The outcome couldn't have been much better given the lack of power. No fatalities!!
The pilots have been vindicated by the report, for once pilot error can be ruled out.
Pete, here's to you getting another flying job soon.
Most of the people on here giving their twopenneth have the benefit of thinking over (or over-thinking) the event from a cosy armchair and unlimited time.
I imagine Sully is getting a similar dissection on his thread.... enough already!
The pilots have been vindicated by the report, for once pilot error can be ruled out.
Pete, here's to you getting another flying job soon.
Most of the people on here giving their twopenneth have the benefit of thinking over (or over-thinking) the event from a cosy armchair and unlimited time.
I imagine Sully is getting a similar dissection on his thread.... enough already!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the AAIB can vindicate me then maybe now the negative comments directed toward me from some can halt.
Pete, thanks for the e-mail a while back, we both wish you good luck for the future...
Bermuda seems so long ago..
R&VG
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmayday38 -
Thank you for your reply. Some very good comments indeed. I am sorry if any remarks I wrote seemed to be critical of your actions that day. My remarks merely stated that _I_ didn't think raising the flaps would produce the desired results. All the tests in the sims will NEVER really prove whether it did or not. And, like I also stated, the outcome was successful no matter what action was taken. THAT is the main concern.
I guess the next obvious question is were you terminated by BA, and if so, why, or did you elect to leave on your own? Perhaps it's all too personal?
I wish you well in the future.
Thank you for your reply. Some very good comments indeed. I am sorry if any remarks I wrote seemed to be critical of your actions that day. My remarks merely stated that _I_ didn't think raising the flaps would produce the desired results. All the tests in the sims will NEVER really prove whether it did or not. And, like I also stated, the outcome was successful no matter what action was taken. THAT is the main concern.
I guess the next obvious question is were you terminated by BA, and if so, why, or did you elect to leave on your own? Perhaps it's all too personal?
I wish you well in the future.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Jerudong/
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmayday38
CVR? Not much on it! No swearing (my wife was shocked by this), no blaspheming or saying goodbye to anyone (verbal or thoughts in flight). It was obvious that there was no time for normal comms or discussions amongst the crew, so none of us wasted time verbalising anything. We just had to get on with the job in hand, smartish.
CVR? Not much on it! No swearing (my wife was shocked by this), no blaspheming or saying goodbye to anyone (verbal or thoughts in flight). It was obvious that there was no time for normal comms or discussions amongst the crew, so none of us wasted time verbalising anything. We just had to get on with the job in hand, smartish.
rgds pf
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-ATE
Just for you:
Just for you:
For a variety of reasons I chose to accept the voluntary redundancy package offered to BA pilots in May 08 and left BA in Aug 08