What, there's something behind the first class cabin :ooh:

(and there must be a few 'matron' comments regarding that quotation too :))

PS: regarding the 777 photo, what's Capt Cheapskate going to do now he's left his Holiday Inn pen behind:confused: Let's hope he got a new pen on his IAD nightstop :}.

Looking at the graphs in the AAIB report, it would appear to me that if the crew had brought the flaps up to 20 and and accepted a speed close to the F30 bug speed (i.e the go around speed) with the remaining residual thrust there would have been a very good chance of getting the aircraft down in one piece. ( I write this as a retired 767 capt so am not familiar with the 777).
This is not a reflection on the crew of the aircraft but a suggestion for the future, has anyone tried it in the sim?

Under normal conditions, bringing the flaps up from 30 deg. to 20 deg. would take the engines out of approach idle (with thrustlevers at idle position and engine anti-ice off), reducing thrust to minimum idle.

Not sure if that factor would have influenced the circumstances on the already rollbacked engines in this accident. In other words, if it would have restricted the already limited fuel flow even more or not. Hard to tell as long as the cause of the restrictions has yet to be revealed.


Another recent rollback is under investigation:

NTSB investigates Heathrow-like Trent 800 engine issue


Green-dot

Ba 038 777 Accident Remains Unresolved
 

It may be quite important that professional pilots continue to follow this thread. Yes, the AAIB and the NTSB have published information which will probably lead to a conclusion.

It should be very important to all who seriously contribute to this network that vigilance is important.

What happened to BA038 has not been satisfactorily explained. The corrective action makes sense. Nevertheless, the entire aviation community who live at high altitudes, in cold temperatures, for extended periods of time need to follow this thread.

I trust the official investigation teams and the people who support them. I also know from almost 80 years of experience in my family that truth follows examination.

What happened to BA038 is unacceptable. Stay on this thread and contribute.

The AAIB and the NTSB, Boeing and RR are to be trusted. We are the people who make that trust valid. Keep this thread alive.

Tom

sky9

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches

Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 961


Looking at the graphs in the AAIB report, it would appear to me that if the crew had brought the flaps up to 20 and and accepted a speed close to the F30 bug speed (i.e the go around speed) with the remaining residual thrust there would have been a very good chance of getting the aircraft down in one piece. ( I write this as a retired 767 capt so am not familiar with the 777).
This is not a reflection on the crew of the aircraft but a suggestion for the future, has anyone tried it in the sim?
http://static.pprune.org/images/stat...er_offline.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif

Yes, you can make the runway in the sim.

Flaps 20 is half leading edge slats. Large drag reduction with small increase in approach/stall speed.

Residual thrust was greater than idle.

Slowing below Vref increases drag and decreases your glide performance.

We have 20/20 hindsight, crew had seconds to make the appropriate decisions.

Can someone please tell me, or show me the agencie's 'corrective action' recommendations?
Thanks,
Tank

Correctives
 

Some action was taken by some Carriers within 60 days, and was mostly procedural and related to fueling; one can surmise water checks, dumping and test schedules, etc.My understanding is each Line reacted individually according to SOPS and modifications to station procedures. I haven't seen hard copy, and you may not either, then again, you might. In any case, everything is on this thread, so don't ask me to direct you to it, happy reading.

(You fly 135's or sumthin else?)

AF

USA FAA Contact URL re BA038 777 Accident
 

See following URL re USA FAA action re BA038


Justia Regulation Tracker Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes Equipped with Rolls-Royce Model RB211-TRENT 800 Series Engines, - Federal Aviation Administration - 52909?52911 [E8?21138]

Did they really determine the causes?
 

Hello!

and later :

Emphasis of mine.

Virtually identical ice release both sides, causing virtually identical fuel restrictions?

I have the feeling that they do issue an AD, for the shake of "doing something" ...

bis47
 

You are on the money. However, the FAA is doing what it does, mitigate challenges to safe flight. Any AD is almost always a compromise, based on real world factors. One could fault the Trent design and suggest swapping out that powerplant for another less sensitive to corrupted fuel.
Holy CRAP, can you imagine? The Trent isn't the problem; in this case it is merely involved in the solution.

Initially, the carriers reacted by massaging their fueling and sourcing dependencies, including emphasizing steps on the book but not being followed.

Missing from the AD, quite naturally, is the politics and economics of yiping about the true culprit. Here is where I find fault with the FAA.

"In Spec.?" A spec isn't arbitrary, but it makes compromises in the real world. "Ice in Fuel?" Not cute, but how much is too much? The triple 7 is a brilliant aircraft, the Trent, like everything RR is an exquisite engineering feat. Chinese Fuel? The Jury is still out. My 2 pence. AF

Aside: If you are still worried about how ETOPS breaks down into a "simultaneous fault", don't be, myself and others have tried to point out that a twin op ends up functioning in unity with late stage homogeneous systems. Making "identical" demands of two engines (autothrottles) operating in a wickedly similar ambient environment produces wickedly similar results, not rocket science. Sometimes, ETOPS isn't. That can't be AD'd. ETOPS solution? One Trent, one GE per a/c. Better solution? get the water out of the Fuel.

AF

"ETOPS solution? One Trent, one GE per a/c. Better solution? get the water out of the Fuel."

My solution: FOUR engines over water, period.

DC-8
 

Four engines over water, period? That's what I thought when ETOPS hit the pilot lounge, and I reacted the same way. I was made to feel like a reactionary and dinosaur. But that was also when four engines meant four hot pipes, loud flow through a single orifice. What calms my psyche when I fly twins over the Pacific these days, is that I'm flying two hyper dependable propellor engines. Basically, (very basically) ducted thrust turbo-props. I'm still a prop guy at heart, so call me old fashioned.

I'm not so sure Al wouldn't have preferred to have been flying over water when #2 exploded over Sioux City. Forced landings are exceedingly rare.

"Forced landings are exceedingly rare."

Ya.....but it only takes ONE !!!

?
 

It only takes one. For what? I've had three, all involved still breathing and still flying. The DC-10 fireball at Indiana was survived by many. It had three engines, was flying over a number of suitable asphalt runways, was not ETOPS, (E-THROPS?) and yet 180 people perished. An uncontained Turbine failure. The old arguments were mooted long, long ago. Fuel? That can be a problem anytime. Simultaneous failure? likewise. I will emphatically agree that loss of two engines in ETOPS is doodoo land. It is also a forced landing in a four engined a/c, generally. Think about it. It is certainly a forced landing in a three engined a/c. AF

"It only takes one. For what? I've had three, all involved still breathing and still flying. The DC-10 fireball at Indiana was survived by many. It had three engines, was flying over a number of suitable asphalt runways, was not ETOPS, (E-THROPS?) and yet 180 people perished. An uncontained Turbine failure."

It only takes one forced landing to ruin your day.

You've had THREE?!?! I'd be buying lottery tickets if I was you.

Are you talking about the UAL in IOWA (not Indiana)? That was kinda "close to home" (same company) so to speak.

misd-agin
I wasn't making any criticism of the crew, the incident was outside the knowledge of the crew and therefore they cannot be criticised for what they did. I was however asking if there was anything that could be learnt from the incident for the future.

Captain
 

Yes Iowa. Sorry. I think a forced landing has to do with an immediate and unavoidable landing, not whether it is survivable or not, and I don't think three of those is unusual in 40 years of flying. Without looking it up, I think it was Capt. Al Haines? Lots of help in the cockpit, and although the a/c was unflyable, people lived. The accident was powerplant related, the a/c had three engines (at least at T/O), and I think is instructive when discussing the "dangers" of ETOPS. By the way, I've always been fond of Douglas a/c, and if you fly (flew) the friendly skies, you remember my favorite, the DC-6. We may have some mutual acquaintances. AF

Yep - being lucky can make you an hero...

Again they certainly did their best but the BA public relation coup is really mind boggling :(

"Yes Iowa. Sorry. I think a forced landing has to do with an immediate and unavoidable landing, not whether it is survivable or not, and I don't think three of those is unusual in 40 years of flying. Without looking it up, I think it was Capt. Al Haines? Lots of help in the cockpit, and although the a/c was unflyable, people lived. The accident was powerplant related, the a/c had three engines (at least at T/O), and I think is instructive when discussing the "dangers" of ETOPS. By the way, I've always been fond of Douglas a/c, and if you fly (flew) the friendly skies, you remember my favorite, the DC-6. We may have some mutual acquaintances. AF"

Yes, it was Al. Are you saying HE had three forced landings, or you? I'm just thankful I never had ANY in 30 years.

Ah yes, the DC-6/7. First Type Rating. Great machine. Flew all seats. I was the last one off. I still prefer the Connie, but never got a rating in it. Probably why I liked the -8 so much; some similarities with the Connie.

Yup, we probably have some mutuals. I guess we're getting a little off course, however.

Ba 038
 

This is a pro-forma entry.

Given no futher input from AAIB, NTSB, FAA or other authorities from 14 January 2009 regarding this thread, the members continue to await further science and knowledge.

The BA038 accident remains a serious and unacceptable situation. It is hoped the interim action required by the AD note eliminates the possibility for further issues.

Nevertheless, unresolved causes for accidents and appropriate final correcctive action must be the primary focus of this thread.