BA038 (B777) Thread
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps increase lift and drag, and of course the flaps on the 777 and other airliners also increase the wing area. But the later stages of flap are almost all drag-producing, and provide little if any lift. I don't know the 777, but I wouldn't be surprised if the flap setting normally used on a powered approach would be far too draggy if the power fails and there is a sudden need to stretch the glide.
Reducing flap to get rid of the drag, but not reducing it to a point that significant lift starts to be lost as well, will not result in any sink and will be benficial to an aeroplane in the situation that 777 found itself in.
SSD
Reducing flap to get rid of the drag, but not reducing it to a point that significant lift starts to be lost as well, will not result in any sink and will be benficial to an aeroplane in the situation that 777 found itself in.
SSD
Beating a Dead Horse
Dated1, you're beating a dead horse. 
The crew did a commendable job. The task now is to find out why the engines didn't respond to a requested increase in thrust. Nothing more.
The crew did a commendable job. The task now is to find out why the engines didn't respond to a requested increase in thrust. Nothing more.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I am not the world's greatest typist, the time it has taken to type THIS sentence is approximately the time available for the entire process on BA038, from recognition of problem to arrival.
And that's without the time for some minor corrections after the fact - an opportunity the flight crew did not have.
They took and passed with honours one of the shorter courses in test piloting in the whole history of aviation.
It seems a very satisfactory result, all considered. Job well done.
And that's without the time for some minor corrections after the fact - an opportunity the flight crew did not have.
They took and passed with honours one of the shorter courses in test piloting in the whole history of aviation.
It seems a very satisfactory result, all considered. Job well done.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smilen Ed
No doubt the crew did a commendable job under the circumstances.
I don't think many of us could claim to have been able to do much better.
What we are doing here now is attempting to suss out the optimum actions that would have 'stretched' the inadequately powered glide and perhaps have resulted in the gear reaching the hard stuff.
This is a continuing process for the skilful operators who seek to learn from opportunities such as this particular set of complex circumstances. I guess you can call it learning the hard way!
No doubt the crew did a commendable job under the circumstances.
I don't think many of us could claim to have been able to do much better.
What we are doing here now is attempting to suss out the optimum actions that would have 'stretched' the inadequately powered glide and perhaps have resulted in the gear reaching the hard stuff.
This is a continuing process for the skilful operators who seek to learn from opportunities such as this particular set of complex circumstances. I guess you can call it learning the hard way!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any evaluation of the crews performance will be contained in the AAIB's concluding report. It will be up to the various regulating authorities to make recommendations, regarding operating procedures for the B777, as necessary.
My own thoughts at the moment, are that pushing the nose down to increase speed, might have led to a large hole in the ground to the east of the A30! -but at least the a/c would have hit the ground at the right speed
. Perhaps Right1 can share his/her knowledge of the B777's ground effect? Stretching the glide was quite obviously a successful manoeuvre, since all on board lived to tell the tale.
My own thoughts at the moment, are that pushing the nose down to increase speed, might have led to a large hole in the ground to the east of the A30! -but at least the a/c would have hit the ground at the right speed
. Perhaps Right1 can share his/her knowledge of the B777's ground effect? Stretching the glide was quite obviously a successful manoeuvre, since all on board lived to tell the tale.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach Flaps setting
While configured with "landing Flaps", and flying at Vref, you have 30% margin against the stall (or minimum flyable airspeed, wahatever the terminology). Il, at that time, you retract flaps to "approach flaps setting", you are left with at least 20% margin above the stall ... and much les drag.
Retracting the flaps to the "aproach flaps setting" is one of those required immediate actions if you start a go-around initialy in "landing flaps config" and get an engine failure at the same time.
Any-one with a good training is familiar with this flaps retraction, so I can understand that the crew might have reduced the flaps from 30 to 25 without taking a chance of immediate stall.
Now, when I read that so many members consider that letting the auto-pilot fly the aircraft in such a situation -and loosing more than 30 knots in the process - is "doing a good job" ... I wonder about their degree of basic piloting skill and about their airmanship ... if any.
It was stated somewhere that replaying the situation in the simulator with more "creativity" resulted in an almost normal touchdown at the very beginning of the tarmac. No wonder ...
Analysis the crew performance will indeed give usefull information about the effectiveness of their previous training (flying skill, airmanship, crew co-operation), and as a matter of consequence, of modern, minimum training in general. "System operation" training ...
Retracting the flaps to the "aproach flaps setting" is one of those required immediate actions if you start a go-around initialy in "landing flaps config" and get an engine failure at the same time.
Any-one with a good training is familiar with this flaps retraction, so I can understand that the crew might have reduced the flaps from 30 to 25 without taking a chance of immediate stall.
Now, when I read that so many members consider that letting the auto-pilot fly the aircraft in such a situation -and loosing more than 30 knots in the process - is "doing a good job" ... I wonder about their degree of basic piloting skill and about their airmanship ... if any.
It was stated somewhere that replaying the situation in the simulator with more "creativity" resulted in an almost normal touchdown at the very beginning of the tarmac. No wonder ...
Analysis the crew performance will indeed give usefull information about the effectiveness of their previous training (flying skill, airmanship, crew co-operation), and as a matter of consequence, of modern, minimum training in general. "System operation" training ...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actions of pilots
Dated 1,
We obedientally take it that the AAIB always leave 'no stone unturned' in their quest to provide ALL of the factors in any serious accident; especially unsolved accidents after many months of digging for clues?
I wrote to them a few months ago asking if the AAIB had checked the pilots blood and fat either at the time or subsequently. I then wrote again about another serious accident at EMA / BHX, with much the same reply.
Apparently as 'It is not the AAIB's policy to routinely subject a surviving crew member to blood/fat tests unless of course, the individual themselves complains of feeling unwell at the time of the occurence'.
***CRASH!*** AAIB "How do you feel?" Surviving pilots "Oh great, thanks!"
Anybody who has experienced the cumulative / acute effects of contaminated air will know the disastrous results it can have on ones performance. Indeed, the AAIB have helpfully published the effects in pilots own words over the years in many other incident reports. The majority obviously go unreported. Here are some 'officially published' descriptive words.
Difficulty concentrating, feeling of fainting, odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain, felt discomfort and a feeling of ‘moon walking’, mild dizziness, very nauseous, markedly dizzy and groggy, difficulty focussing, light headed and hot, felt progressively worse, tingling feeling in fingertips and arms started shaking, “feeling dreadful”, white face and pupils dilated, hands trembling, double vision, light headed and tired, dazed, headache and eye irritation, blisters inside mouth, tight chest, sore throat for days, coughing, metallic taste in mouth, tingling sensation on lips, errors of judgement and garbled speech, verge of passing out, tunnel vision, loss of balance, loss of feeling in hands and lower arms.
Perhaps by coincidence, chemicals are also found in ones blood and fat - just like an athlete may be hauled over the coals for having specks of performance enhancing drugs in their bodies or drunk drivers are grounded for their known performance degrading effect. Even many affected pilots memories have also been professionally measured as being 'abnormal'.....
Dated 1, i'm with you. Some very non SOP things happened on both those days at LHR and EMA/BHX in extraordinary circumstances and I wouldn't bet that leaving the auto pilot in until the last second in BA 038 was not actual skill - but more like pure luck.
Good for them, all those pilots did a great job in the circumstances. But what were those circumstances. Exactly?
Who thinks that pilots should routinely have their blood / fat tested after such an incident? If only to rule out any question of pilot's being influenced by anything.
It STILL doesn't add up.
If you are one of the 70% who have never been affected by contaminated air then lucky you; but please have the courtesy of listening to the apparent minority who have experienced the devastating above effects whilst operating a public transport aircraft, often totally unaware of the likely reason.
It can all be very confusing but requires understanding - urgently.
DB
We obedientally take it that the AAIB always leave 'no stone unturned' in their quest to provide ALL of the factors in any serious accident; especially unsolved accidents after many months of digging for clues?
I wrote to them a few months ago asking if the AAIB had checked the pilots blood and fat either at the time or subsequently. I then wrote again about another serious accident at EMA / BHX, with much the same reply.
Apparently as 'It is not the AAIB's policy to routinely subject a surviving crew member to blood/fat tests unless of course, the individual themselves complains of feeling unwell at the time of the occurence'.
***CRASH!*** AAIB "How do you feel?" Surviving pilots "Oh great, thanks!"
Anybody who has experienced the cumulative / acute effects of contaminated air will know the disastrous results it can have on ones performance. Indeed, the AAIB have helpfully published the effects in pilots own words over the years in many other incident reports. The majority obviously go unreported. Here are some 'officially published' descriptive words.
Difficulty concentrating, feeling of fainting, odd pressure in the head, nasal itching and ear pain, felt discomfort and a feeling of ‘moon walking’, mild dizziness, very nauseous, markedly dizzy and groggy, difficulty focussing, light headed and hot, felt progressively worse, tingling feeling in fingertips and arms started shaking, “feeling dreadful”, white face and pupils dilated, hands trembling, double vision, light headed and tired, dazed, headache and eye irritation, blisters inside mouth, tight chest, sore throat for days, coughing, metallic taste in mouth, tingling sensation on lips, errors of judgement and garbled speech, verge of passing out, tunnel vision, loss of balance, loss of feeling in hands and lower arms.
Perhaps by coincidence, chemicals are also found in ones blood and fat - just like an athlete may be hauled over the coals for having specks of performance enhancing drugs in their bodies or drunk drivers are grounded for their known performance degrading effect. Even many affected pilots memories have also been professionally measured as being 'abnormal'.....
Dated 1, i'm with you. Some very non SOP things happened on both those days at LHR and EMA/BHX in extraordinary circumstances and I wouldn't bet that leaving the auto pilot in until the last second in BA 038 was not actual skill - but more like pure luck.
Good for them, all those pilots did a great job in the circumstances. But what were those circumstances. Exactly?
Who thinks that pilots should routinely have their blood / fat tested after such an incident? If only to rule out any question of pilot's being influenced by anything.
It STILL doesn't add up.
If you are one of the 70% who have never been affected by contaminated air then lucky you; but please have the courtesy of listening to the apparent minority who have experienced the devastating above effects whilst operating a public transport aircraft, often totally unaware of the likely reason.
It can all be very confusing but requires understanding - urgently.
DB
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bis47
"so many members consider .......doing a good job"
The post before yours by point8six certainly reflect my views, and, I'm sure, many others.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scottish FIR
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who thinks that pilots should routinely have their blood / fat tested after such an incident? If only to rule out any question of pilot's being influenced by anything.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dated1, you're not thinkng clearly. Consider this:
At 700ft, landing gear and flaps out, you suddently discover engines don't have the power to maintain glide slope, you quickly know you're going down. Point the nose, try to stretch the glide to the runway, retract the flaps a notch to lower drag (but only a notch, because you don't have the airspeed). Quickly you realize you don't have the energy to make the runway, and this is ALL about energy.
You then see you can make the infield grass, but how fast do you want to set down on it, 140kts to 150kts? The undercarriage will be ripped off anyway in the soft grass and soil, so point the nose in the air near the stall, and touchdown at 108kts instead. Sure it'll be a hard touchdown and the undercarriage will be crushed and ripped off (was going to happen anyway), but you won't slide very far with much less energy to disintegrate the airframe structure. Also think of the undercarriage as a beneath the airframe crumple zone.
As I said this is ALL about energy, especially when contacting unpredictable terra firma instead of a hard straight runway. Keep the energy levels down on impact, and everyone lives.
All in all, this was outstanding airmanship, the results speak for themselves.
At 700ft, landing gear and flaps out, you suddently discover engines don't have the power to maintain glide slope, you quickly know you're going down. Point the nose, try to stretch the glide to the runway, retract the flaps a notch to lower drag (but only a notch, because you don't have the airspeed). Quickly you realize you don't have the energy to make the runway, and this is ALL about energy.
You then see you can make the infield grass, but how fast do you want to set down on it, 140kts to 150kts? The undercarriage will be ripped off anyway in the soft grass and soil, so point the nose in the air near the stall, and touchdown at 108kts instead. Sure it'll be a hard touchdown and the undercarriage will be crushed and ripped off (was going to happen anyway), but you won't slide very far with much less energy to disintegrate the airframe structure. Also think of the undercarriage as a beneath the airframe crumple zone.
As I said this is ALL about energy, especially when contacting unpredictable terra firma instead of a hard straight runway. Keep the energy levels down on impact, and everyone lives.
All in all, this was outstanding airmanship, the results speak for themselves.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seoul
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Dangerous to post on this thread in relation to the pilots, however one point I have not seen mentioned before is below.
First however I would like to, for the purpose of this post, to take it as given that in this situation these pilots made at least good decisions for this situation. Further, those decisions resulted in no major injuries and would not have been bettered by perhaps 99% of other pilots in similar circumstances. As such there is thus no room to personally criticize these pilots. Whether you agree or not with this is immaterial to this argument as it is taken as given.
Now, lets imagine this fuel/engine issue had occurred just a few seconds (2-3??) later. In such a situation, it could be argued that the pilots would have made exactly the same decisions, but the result could then have been a scrape on the runway, fire, and perhaps many deaths.
Alternately it could have happened a few seconds earlier and only that 1% of better pilots would have been able to even land it even on the grass.
Would it be fair to criticize these pilots in either of the other two situations? I would suggest not, even though they may have resulted in many deaths. The simple fact is that the lack of injuries seems to be a result of pilots making reasonable decisions in a window in which those reasonable decisions were able to have a mostly positive outcome.
Going back to the question about pilots posted above, I do think it is reasonable to question the pilots actions, but ONLY from the perspective of seeing if it would be possible to somehow increase the chance in the future that the right decisions are made within the right window. In reality, I don't think this is possible, but asking if it is possible does seem important.
TME
First however I would like to, for the purpose of this post, to take it as given that in this situation these pilots made at least good decisions for this situation. Further, those decisions resulted in no major injuries and would not have been bettered by perhaps 99% of other pilots in similar circumstances. As such there is thus no room to personally criticize these pilots. Whether you agree or not with this is immaterial to this argument as it is taken as given.
Now, lets imagine this fuel/engine issue had occurred just a few seconds (2-3??) later. In such a situation, it could be argued that the pilots would have made exactly the same decisions, but the result could then have been a scrape on the runway, fire, and perhaps many deaths.
Alternately it could have happened a few seconds earlier and only that 1% of better pilots would have been able to even land it even on the grass.
Would it be fair to criticize these pilots in either of the other two situations? I would suggest not, even though they may have resulted in many deaths. The simple fact is that the lack of injuries seems to be a result of pilots making reasonable decisions in a window in which those reasonable decisions were able to have a mostly positive outcome.
Going back to the question about pilots posted above, I do think it is reasonable to question the pilots actions, but ONLY from the perspective of seeing if it would be possible to somehow increase the chance in the future that the right decisions are made within the right window. In reality, I don't think this is possible, but asking if it is possible does seem important.
TME
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dead stick approach
Let me refer back to my original post, 1464, and perhaps make it clearer that no critisism of the pilots is intended. I just wish to see a clear pilot evaluation carried out for the further education of those still fortunate enough to be on a flight deck. Milt, post 1486, got the point of my thinking as did Bis47, post 1488, along with several others. Point8six, post 1487, 'Right1'? Loved the humour. A valuable contribution to this thread.
Rightly or wrongly, and please forgive this, I have always felt that a pilot is better for substantial glider experience, preferably current and on flapped gliders. I warmed to any young man, or young lady, in the rhs that mentioned gliding, but perhaps word had got out...
Such pilots are high on 'stick and rudder' flying. Would my gliding experience have kicked in and reverted to 'flying', put the nose down and trade altitude for speed in a 777? No idea. In a 737? Absolutely.
Thank you however for all of your comments gentlemen. How wonderful this site is for communication with you. Any tips for how to get my old airframe and this sofa airborne would be so welcome.
Rightly or wrongly, and please forgive this, I have always felt that a pilot is better for substantial glider experience, preferably current and on flapped gliders. I warmed to any young man, or young lady, in the rhs that mentioned gliding, but perhaps word had got out...
Such pilots are high on 'stick and rudder' flying. Would my gliding experience have kicked in and reverted to 'flying', put the nose down and trade altitude for speed in a 777? No idea. In a 737? Absolutely.
Thank you however for all of your comments gentlemen. How wonderful this site is for communication with you. Any tips for how to get my old airframe and this sofa airborne would be so welcome.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any tips for how to get my old airframe and this sofa airborne would be so welcome.
If you trawl back into the long grass on this thread you will see unequivocal 'statements' (as yet unsubstantiated) by BA pilots that the flap WAS changed and that sim evaluation runs have shown this was beneficial by several vertical feet.
There is an ace gliding BA man, who when I last heard was in 777's RHS. As an ex 'glider' I know what you mean.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three points I would like to throw into the chat –
The inertia of a large aircraft acts in the pilots favour when stretching a glide (the opposite is also true if you stuff the nose down in an attempt to trade height for speed).
Modern swept wing airliners will have a lower lift curve slope than a modern glider and so can be expected to have a more progressive, gradual and benign stall.
While there are several reasons why airliners are certificated to fly the approach at 1.3 times the stall speed it does mean that there is a bit of slack when it comes to stretching the glide.
The inertia of a large aircraft acts in the pilots favour when stretching a glide (the opposite is also true if you stuff the nose down in an attempt to trade height for speed).
Modern swept wing airliners will have a lower lift curve slope than a modern glider and so can be expected to have a more progressive, gradual and benign stall.
While there are several reasons why airliners are certificated to fly the approach at 1.3 times the stall speed it does mean that there is a bit of slack when it comes to stretching the glide.
Angle of Attack Indicator?
Do large jet transports like the 777 have an angle of attack (AOA) indicator? If so, there should be a published AOA for the best glide speed for each flap setting. AOA takes the guess work out of it.
Controversial, moi?
No they don't, at least not on any Boeing production aircraft which I have ever flown.
The question would have to be asked how useful it would be given that the instances of jet transport aeroplanes gliding are mercifully rare!
The question would have to be asked how useful it would be given that the instances of jet transport aeroplanes gliding are mercifully rare!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do large jet transports like the 777 have an angle of attack (AOA) indicator? If so, there should be a published AOA for the best glide speed for each flap setting. AOA takes the guess work out of it.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dated1 - at least you still have a sense of humour in your old age!
I think John Farley - as ever - has a very valid point when considering the inertia of large aircraft. I have not flown the 737, but have flown a British jet with a similar wingspan, however, it had all the gliding properties of a 'brick-built out-house' especially in ground effect (it was unaffectionately known as The Ground-Gripper). I still think that instinctively most pilots (non-gliders) would trade speed for height to make the threshold.
As for getting your old frame and sofa airborne - why not follow your own advice - lower the nose, build up airspeed and wait for the ground effect - ouch!
I think John Farley - as ever - has a very valid point when considering the inertia of large aircraft. I have not flown the 737, but have flown a British jet with a similar wingspan, however, it had all the gliding properties of a 'brick-built out-house' especially in ground effect (it was unaffectionately known as The Ground-Gripper). I still think that instinctively most pilots (non-gliders) would trade speed for height to make the threshold.
As for getting your old frame and sofa airborne - why not follow your own advice - lower the nose, build up airspeed and wait for the ground effect - ouch!
AOA Usefulness
M. Mouse wrote: "The question would have to be asked how useful it would be given that the instances of jet transport aeroplanes gliding are mercifully rare!"
I too hope that using AOA to stretch a glide would not happen often, but it would also be useful for ordinary landings because it automatically provides the proper speed for the actual weight of the aircraft without any calculations, especially if your calculations (or fuel quantity readings) are wrong.
I too hope that using AOA to stretch a glide would not happen often, but it would also be useful for ordinary landings because it automatically provides the proper speed for the actual weight of the aircraft without any calculations, especially if your calculations (or fuel quantity readings) are wrong.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AoA Usefulness
Goodness knows how I recall this, but I read this article a number of years ago regarding AoA readout installation in Boeing Aero:
Full article: Aero 12 - Angle of Attack
So, if the approaches were flown on a daily basis by reference to a fixed-approach AOA based on a margin above stall, at any CG aft of the forward limit, the probability of tail strike would be greater than the current practice of using approach airspeeds.