BA 777 "lands short" at Heathrow

[Wankel7]

Ok....I looked at the picture twice...

The first fan is half gone...

Does that damage look like the engine was going full bore when it hit the ground?

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/images/picturegallery_baw_b772_gymmm3.jpg
http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/images/picturegallery_baw_b772_gymmm20.jpg

 

[EWR_FO]

Does anyone know if BA has started using inert gas in their fuel cells. Also yes all the apps into LHR are ILS's with a 160 til 4 DME.
Could one glide at 400' 1.2 mi from the end? Do not want to know..
Regardless Bejing to LHR you will be low on gas. However if redispatched it is perfectly safe and legal if you do not have a huge wind bust etc after your redispatch point.
Lastly the facts will come out shortly and we all will learn from this situation. Right now everything is pure conjecture...

Birdman
Bagram
Curently on tour with the 82nd Airborne

I don't think they would be low on gas because of the distance, I don't think it's any more than around 5,000 miles. They could put plenty of fuel on if it was only a ten hour flight, which seems kind of short for a redispatch in a 777.

 

[viper548]

I've shut down an engine in a 727 shortly after takeoff, and we elected to continue to our destination. Was it legal?
.

Did you cross an ocean after the failure?

 

[UAL'01]

I'm not exactly ntsb...

But looking at this picture does it look like that fan was turning very fast when it hit the ground? Look at the tips they are undamaged....

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/images/picturegallery_baw_b772_gymmm3.jpg

Looks to me like the fan blades are all sheared around 1/3 down and the stators are mostly undamaged...indicating that they were in fact not turning( which is a good thing, since they adverstised the engine that way)...sorry some sarcasm....I am also not NTSB.

looks like you caught it while I was typing....so never mind

 

[boxjockey]

Did you cross an ocean after the failure?

Since it was a 744, believe that from a regulatory standpoint, it simply becomes a three-engined aircraft, and it is perfectly legal to continue as long as considerations such as terrain, alternates, etc are satisfied. And if they were on the North Atlantic routes, then I don't think alternates are such a problem as being over the middle of the Pacific. Doesn't make it a smart decision, but not illegal.

box

 

[Oh-ryan]

Some interesting pictures taken by a Heathrow resident photographer can be found here:

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html

A pilot attempted the same 'double engine failure' scenario at 400-600' in a 777 full motion simulator and found that the glide distance and subsequent touchdown point was almost exact to where the BA plane seems to have been put down.

they should be able to buff that right out.

 

[jke406]

it is perfectly legal to continue as long as considerations such as terrain, alternates, etc are satisfied. And if they were on the North Atlantic routes, then I don't think alternates are such a problem as being over the middle of the Pacific. Doesn't make it a smart decision, but not illegal.

box

True, not at all smart. Sure, you might be able to meet alternate/fuel requirements...but what happens if another engine or another system sh!ts the bed?

 

[trip]

Looks like it was foamed to me?

 

[get2flyin]

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/images/picturegallery_baw_b772_gymmm3.jpg

Looks to me like the fan blades are all sheared around 1/3 down and the stators are mostly undamaged...indicating that they were in fact not turning( which is a good thing, since they adverstised the engine that way)...sorry some sarcasm....I am also not NTSB.

looks like you caught it while I was typing....so never mind

I dunno....there is a lot of weed ingestion. The engine didn't get really ripped up so I wouldn't say it was at full power, but it was making some power.

 

[fatboyplt]

I don't think they would be low on gas because of the distance, I don't think it's any more than around 5,000 miles. They could put plenty of fuel on if it was only a ten hour flight, which seems kind of short for a redispatch in a 777.

I did not mean to imply low on fuel to the point of a fuel emergency. Just perhaps low because they were at the end of the flight. The redispatch function as I know you are well aware of, is just a way to carry less fuel and perhaps more payload to destination. Yes 10 hrs is relatively a short flt in the 777, but still a redispatch is still in good order to minamize the fuel requirement while maintaining a good margin of safety.

Regardless there have been some good points so far on this thread. Hopefully it was not just a run out of fuel situation.......

Birdman
Bagram
On tour with the 82nd Airborne

 

[737 Pylt]

Pile O', yer back! Word on the street was that your last catfight got a bit out of hand and you earned that dreaded third strike. How ya been? Excited about Merger Mania? Sounds like there could be a new uniform in it for you which, plus a full length mirror, would be just like a brand new girlfriend, huh?

Retard:
Still hanging out in the men's room looking for dates I see!
Stop back when you have less time!

737

 

[737 Pylt]

.....

 

[SELCAL checks]

Did you cross an ocean after the failure?

As the box jockey stated, relatively speaking, Atlantic crossings aren't all that critical. Smart? That's too difficult to define and too subjective. Safe? Well, BA and the PIC had numerous hours to develop a new gameplan/flight plan, fuel burn, etc.. before they coasted out, I'm guessing they found themselves over the revised burn and decided to land short. I highly doubt that they decided to coast out without developing new ETPs for an additional engine out, rapid D, 3 engine divert.

How much gas was in the tanks when they landed? Might have been a relatively conservative amount, might not have been. We don't know, so why waste time second guessing. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he determined that he could legally and safely continue his flight, then why not move his passengers closer to their destination and his aircraft closer to a company maintenance base. I don't see anything wrong with that. That's what good pilots are supposed to do, once they are assured the safety of the airplane and pax are not in jeopardy.

I suppose the safest course of action is always: don't take off. Or drive to the airport, for that matter. Or petition Boeing for a 5th engine on all 747s. But then I guess people would start diverting immediately if one failed.

 

[DashTrash400]

Some interesting pictures taken by a Heathrow resident photographer can be found here:

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html

A pilot attempted the same 'double engine failure' scenario at 400-600' in a 777 full motion simulator and found that the glide distance and subsequent touchdown point was almost exact to where the BA plane seems to have been put down.

Guys, look at the picture of the damage to the rear right wing area. It looks like the RAT was deployed. That certainly gives credibility to the dual engine failure scenario.

 

[RJAA]

I did not mean to imply low on fuel to the point of a fuel emergency. Just perhaps low because they were at the end of the flight. The redispatch function as I know you are well aware of, is just a way to carry less fuel and perhaps more payload to destination. Yes 10 hrs is relatively a short flt in the 777, but still a redispatch is still in good order to minamize the fuel requirement while maintaining a good margin of safety.

Regardless there have been some good points so far on this thread. Hopefully it was not just a run out of fuel situation.......

Birdman
Bagram
On tour with the 82nd Airborne

For what it's worth, there is hardly any benefit of redispatch flight plan on a 10 hr B777 flight under the U.S. regulations with 5% international fuel reserve exemption in place. Since the international fuel reserve is a function of percentage over the duration of flight, the longer the flight, the higher the benefit from re-dispatch, reducing the high amount of reserve fuel you have to carry along the entire way. Without it, say for a 15 hr flight on BOM-EWR, It makes fuel over destination too high thus raising the overrall fuel requirement high, putting pressure on payload it can carry.

 

[viper548]

What is re-dispatching?

 

[RJAA]

EWR-HKG released only up to PEK, continegent upon fuel burn progress enroute, carry the enroute burn from EWR-HKG, then the paper destination alternate (assuming the weather is good in HKG) 30 min holding at 1500ft but reserve fuel required for the entire segment is calculated 10% of the flight time from PEK-HKG portion only. If that amount is lower than carrying 5% reserve fuel for the entire 15 hr flight from EWR-HKG, then you have a winner, reducing the overral fuel requirement thus allowing more payload.

 

[UKflyer]

The initial AAIB report can be found here:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

 

[EWR_FO]

Rubber dog $hit is getting lighter all the time.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

This site must be well inundated with requests.

Some interesting pictures taken by a Heathrow resident photographer can be found here:

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html

Error 503 - Service Temporarily Unavailable

This error means that the web server is currently unable to handle your request due to a temporary overload.
Please try to reload the webpage in a few seconds.