BoeingMEL

...cos there's no such thing. IMMERSION maybe?

S.F.L.Y

Deliberately going to airspeed low warning to improve gliding distance? I'd be surprised if Boeing would produce any recommendation in that direction...

From my understanding of the report this was only a consequence of the fact that the AP remained connected (on the contrary of what the PF wanted), thus being an inadvertent and non deliberate situation. If your PF was distracted enough not to realize the AP was engaged then I'm not sure that his primary goal was to bring such an heavy aircraft down to stall speed while still over 150 ft.

I don't agree with you when you say that since there couldn't be better results, there is no need to discuss about it. I anyway congratulate you for your action on the flaps which made the difference that day. Nothing to say about your PNF role but there's still something in the report which remains unclear and certainly not satisfactory:

The report is very confusing when saying the PF intended to disconnect the AP at 600 ft, then that he believed it was disconnected and finally that he omitted to do it because of some distraction until the stick shaker activates below 200 ft. I'm very curious to understand what could be distracting the PF, preventing him to control the aircraft for several hundred feet during an emergency situation, which is basically his primary and unique task.

If the PF didn't realize that the AP was engaged while he thought it wasn't, it means the aircraft wasn't under control, which I don't consider satisfactory and I'm quite puzzled that nothing is being said about that.

Could you please take some time to clarify what is the meaning of "omission" in the report? Were you aware that the AP was engaged? Were you aware that your PF thought it wasn't? That's why cockpit communication is important, thus interest in the CVR transcription.

CATIIIBnoDH

Dear Mmmayday38,

My flying days are over (+15k hrs) and I was so fortunate never to experience
an accident you encountered. Not even on the sim, we did train engine failures on final but never loss of thrust of all engines on final.

We never met, maybe we heard our voices over the Atlantic or the Desert. But I want to tell you I can only hope that if I had encountered the same situation I would react in the same way you and your crew did. Chapeau for you and your crew.
Wishing you a joyful and safe career ahead.

Frank.

cats_five

Am so, so glad to hear that 1) the AAIB report backed up retracting the flap, and 2) no better result from that position has been got in the simulator - suspect a great many far worse results were obtained.

My fingers are firmly crossed that no-one else will have their experience in anything - hopefully the lessons have been learnt etc.

I'm not sure I would call the flight crew heros (after all they had no choice in being there!) but they are certainly professionals of the first order and worth of our highest praise for that, and their quick and correct actions in a situation that in retrospect must have been very, very scary.

Best wishes to them in their future careers.

TIMA9X

Can't you just leave it for a while.......words fail me!

Can anyone smarter than I answer S.F.L.Y ?

S.F.L.Y

Then just explain me who was aware of who was actually controlling the aircraft since the PF though the AP was disconnected while it wasn't.

A "smart" person should understand why I'm curious about it.

nojwod

SFLY

I cannot for the life of me understand why you think it matters so much. It's as though you have this scenario in your head that you'd have been more capable and thought through the dilemmas facing this crew with incredible Swiss watch precision, constantly monitoring every switch and display in the cockpit, fully aware of the exact drag coefficient at any point after the loss of thrust, and able to scientifically compute the best configuration and angle, all the while mentally preparing for your rightful hero's welcome after you had miraculously guided the aircraft into a textbook greaser right on the numbers.

As others have said, nothing is to be gained by your rather strange terrier-like determination to continue with pointless questions and surmises, best you retire safe in the knowledge that you know best. We won't mind. Honest.

captplaystation

S.F.L.Y

Which part of p1ss off don't you understand. ?

TIMA9X, sorry mate not smarter than you, just a bit less tactful.

BarbiesBoyfriend

Come on chaps. No need to be rude.

There's a couple things here.

1. Well done raising that flap! Inspired and I'm sure we all hope (wish) to have the presence of mind to do the same. Top flying!

Also: No one got killed! Top notch again! (and well done to the CCrew for handling what must have been a tricky evac.)

2. On the other hand, plainly they rode the thing down the ILS with the AP in! Not so hot.

And then basically wrote the thing off when it ran out of speed and mushed in with a big 'ol rate of descent.

Could I tentatively suggest that a controlled landing, wiping out the (frangible) ILS fence might have saved the a/c?

Me, don't think I'd have got the flap in, but I'd have set it down on the ground.

S.F.L.Y

The report let you think that nobody was aware of who/what was controlling the aircraft between 600 and 175 ft.

Can't I ask for clarifications without being insulted?

p51guy

Works for me.

Wod

Coming in late here.

The report says they done good.

So good that they flew a near perfect descent and approach profile with no throttle adjustments.

Enroute temperatures were outside historic experience.

I accept the report.

wiggy

Are you really saying you're willing to bet on the frangibility of the ILS "fence" in order to save the aircraft? Because if it doesn't "frange" quickly enough it's may well be entering the Flight Deck.....


Edited to add: If you look at the 27L undershoot, either in real life or even on Google Earth, you'll see that the boundary fence is not far short of the ILS installation (the 09R Loc aerials)...now if you reckon you've got the skills to hop a gliding 777 over the fence ( which from memory is supported 2-3 metre high concrete posts) and then duck down and land it through the ILS installation, all in order to save the airframe, well, I'm extremely impressed.


Anyhow the crew were handed a load of **** at v. short notice, kudos for doing what they did.

PETTIFOGGER

SFLYThe "some sort of distraction" to which you refer was quite obviously the double roll-back. See pages 139 to 141 of the AAIB report. Which parts of the report do you find confusing?
Something has been said about it - p 139 of the report "However, as the aircraft descended through 600 ft he became aware of a problem with the engines, indicated by a split in the thrust lever positions. It is likely that, in attempting to understand the sudden and unprecedented problem with which he was presented he was distracted and thus omitted to disconnect the autopilot as this point.”
This is also appears at point 15 in the section on 'Conclusions', p.167.

please give a page reference for this.

captplaystation

Ken (its shorter ) AAIB report appears to disagree with your damage assessment and suggests that hitting the ILS would not have been a good thing.
I appreciate you accepting that you may not have thought to raise the flaps, but hey, did you ever think, like many of us have done perhaps inwardly, that there also exists the possibility we would just have gone blank and sat there till the impact. I think the F/O may just have done that up to a point, but do you think any of us can appreciate his feeling of numbed disbelief that he was now piloting a glider whilst hoping that miraculously power might be restored before ground contact. Yes the A/P may not have optimised the glide performance by slavishly, as it was programmed to do, following the G/P BUT it flew the aircraft safely up until stick shaker, at which point the F/O took control and managed the best landing he could. Perhaps this could be run through a sim for session after session for months and indeed someone could come out with a different ? better? who knows ? outcome . . BUT, anyone playing this game is really not worthy of response as they are losing sight of the VERY big picture. . . . this being, that these guys were handed a totally untrained for emergency at a very late stage of an approach and managed to improvise enough to effect an arrival in a clear area that everyone, bar the poor bloke with the gear in his leg, managed to walk away from.
It is so easy to sit & pick holes in it with the benefit of hindsight, time, and a desk in front of you.
Once again I would suggest that everyone who has some lingering doubt here, listen again to the ATC tape & just try to imagine how quickly this unfolded between the calm readback of the landing clearance and the truncated mayday call followed by the ATC tx that they had crashed.
I know some will remain unconvinced, but really, with this little imagination what the hell do they know, and are they even worth responding to, for the rest of us, please guys, get real and try and imagine yourself in these guys shoes. If you can, & you are still convinced you would have done better, I suggest you need to either sober up or take a reality check.
Having been exonerated of any misdemeanour, indeed even praised in the report, I cannot imagine why some (and I am thinking particularly S.F.L.Y ) wish to (or even feel they have some expertise or right to ) subject him to trial by PPRuNe, this is laughable guys.
No-one can say how they would have reacted, no-one can say a better outcome could have been found, and yet still some want to continue with " what if, & how, & why didn't ,etc etc.
This is beyond ridiculous now.
These guys were handed @ 720 ft a glider, they realised this @ 480 ft and 35 seconds later put the aircraft in a place & in a fashion that enabled everyone to survive.
Which part of the BIG picture is it that you should not be in admiration of, that results in this spastic attempt to chew on the minutae of what you "would" have done better.

Big reality check required for some posters.

jumbojet

We fly the same routes, but I didnt fly that day. My collegue did though, as others. They were behind 038, but in a 744. Its true OATs were at a very low level, so low that many twins were asking for lower levels. Indeed in the 744 the Low Fuel Temp illuminated, so speed was increased to try & increase the fuel temp. He increase to .88, but to no avail!! Eventually he & other 744s were also all asking for decent, but amongst this chaos a lone voice was heard asking for further climb, BA038. The sarcastic conversation on the flt deck followed along the lines of "he a brave boy" No more was said & subject dropped, Until that is, the TV was turned on in the hotel!!
I have cross checked with other crews in the vacinity, they agree with the facts.
Food for thought.

S.F.L.Y

The report says that:

• The PF intended to disconnect the AP at 600 ft.
• He was distracted and omitted to do so (AP remained non-intentionally connected)
• He believed it was disconnected (not aware that it was until stick shaker)

My understanding is that:

• Keeping the AP was not intentional
• The PF wasn't aware that he wasn't actually controlling the aircraft between 600 and 175 ft (what about the PNF?)

Wasn't there a crew awareness problem between 600 and 175 ft with nobody knowing who/what was actually controlling the aircraft for almost one minute?

bughunta

S.L.F.Y.

AKA...
Tireless Rebutter

TIMA9X

Probably the words I was looking for, on the previous couple of pages pilots were congratulating The flight crew of BA 038, it has been a long and sometimes bewildering thread, we have been through all scenarios on countless posts.
S.F.L.Y. if you feel insulted well I am sorry, but it may be possible that it was a badly timed post.

Captain Burkhill has been through a lot since the incident, and I am sure that many current pilots felt some relief for him since the report came out. We are all human so I ask you to watch the BBC video again BBC News - Hero BA pilot speaks of Heathrow Boeing 777 crash (already posted on this thread but for your convenience,) trust that you may see what I and others are on about. To say anything else of a technical nature would have already been said on this thread other than to leave you with one question. Don't you think the BA038 crew deserve some credit/congratulations for the outcome of this incident moreover the relief that Peter, his crew and families must be feeling today!
Think about it S.F.L.Y. your timing of your posts is sometimes out of order with the general flow of the thread.

Captplaystation, you said it all, sorry I missed it as I was writing this post, congrats!

Just wondering

Dear CPS - absolutely spot on !!

I've had a few engine failures in my time, a depress, an evac, a bunch of RTOs etc but the thing which gave me the only fright I've ever had in an airliner was the airpeed tape on my screen going u/s (plus all the airspeed warnings) just before rotate on a dark, rainy night ...... it was the lack of time to deal with it which made my heart race.

I think people forget it takes time to understand what the problem is from all the indicators, warnings etc that are assaulting your senses before you can decide and act.... or not as the case may be - good airmanship sometimes dicates that you should not make a drama out of a crisis by pushing and pulling the wrong stuff.

...... I still fly ULH and I can tell you now I'm as sharp as a beachball after a 12-16 hour flight starting at 11pm - so to have to deal with a situation like this having been awake for 20-24 hours !!!!! ..... I can only think that many of the detractors/aerodynamic PHD holders have never done back of the clock stuff and have never had to deal with a major emergency made worse by having only seconds available.

I only pray that if something this bad ever happened to me that I could match the performance of Captain Burkill and his crew. Double engine failure seconds before landing and nobody dies ...... unbelievable result !!!