BA 777 "lands short" at Heathrow

[Spooky 2]

I guess I just don't know enough about flammable liquids.

How can the landing gear pierce the fuel tanks, which reportedly had fuel in them, and not cause a fire?

I don't get it.[/quot

This is because the flash point on the various jet fuels used today are significantly lower than say, 115 Octane gasoline. It will burn, no doubt about that but in this case they were very lucky that it did not torch off. It appears that the gear did not actually penetrate the fuel tank but folded aft and upwards from the photos I have seen but maybe someone else has a different opinion or knows something else about this accident.

 

[Networ-King]

Don't know if this was posted already, but Im too lazy to go through 20 pages of BS, this is funny shizzle though....

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/61345/1200695510/runway.gif

 

[Britpilot]

I guess I just don't know enough about flammable liquids.

How can the landing gear pierce the fuel tanks, which reportedly had fuel in them, and not cause a fire?

I don't get it.

You're kidding...right?

 

[Cardinal]

I guess I just don't know enough about flammable liquids.

How can the landing gear pierce the fuel tanks, which reportedly had fuel in them, and not cause a fire?

I don't get it.

For all the same reasons you can impale your car's gas tank with a screwdriver without flattening the neighborhood.

Fire Triangle? http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/nfp/triangle.jpg
Apparently one or more required components weren't present.

 

[igneousy2]

Why would the good engine be unspooled in the first place?

Unstable approach? Wind shear? There are many scenarios where an airplane could be unspooled when it's not supposed to be.

That's simply not the way you land an airplane like this.

Do you mean; you don't land a 777 unspooled, or do you mean; you don't land a 777 1000 feet short of the threshold? Clearly - something went wrong during this landing.

When you start extending the flaps the engine go to "approach idle" and inhibit that completely unpsooled power setting.

Okay -sorry, I don't fly the 777 - When I say "unspooled" I mean - it's minimum "approach idle" setting with the engine as unspooled as the FADEC will allow the engine to get....

The B777 will land with flaps 30, 1EO without any problem however the normal 1EO config is for flaps to be set at 20 with flaps 5 for GA just like almost all other Boeings built today.

Any airplane will land in any configuration given enough energy - my question is if for whatever reason the airplane was back at "flight idle" (a worst case) and an engine failed and it was dirty (gear down flaps 30) how much altitude would you guess a 777 would need to arrest the descent and get back to an acceptable profile for landing.

My airline trains "2 in 1 out" where you get an engine failure right at 200 AGL on an ILS just as you start the missed (The fact that the engine is already spooling-up at the point of the engine failure is an advantage). It is very easy to see how if you were not aggresive enough in power and/or pitch, (surprised, not in the go-around mindset) even a little MD80 could come in contact with the runway during this maneuver. It does not seem like much of a stretch that this could happen to a 777 from further out like 400-500'...maybe more...hence the question.

Anyway, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

 

[Spooky 2]

Why would the good engine be unspooled in the first place?

Unstable approach? Wind shear? There are many scenarios where an airplane could be unspooled when it's not supposed to be.

That's simply not the way you land an airplane like this.

Do you mean; you don't land a 777 unspooled, or do you mean; you don't land a 777 1000 feet short of the threshold? Clearly - something went wrong during this landing.

When you start extending the flaps the engine go to "approach idle" and inhibit that completely unpsooled power setting.

Okay -sorry, I don't fly the 777 - When I say "unspooled" I mean - it's minimum "approach idle" setting with the engine as unspooled as the FADEC will allow the engine to get....

The B777 will land with flaps 30, 1EO without any problem however the normal 1EO config is for flaps to be set at 20 with flaps 5 for GA just like almost all other Boeings built today.

Any airplane will land in any configuration given enough energy - my question is if for whatever reason the airplane was back at "flight idle" (a worst case) and an engine failed and it was dirty (gear down flaps 30) how much altitude would you guess a 777 would need to arrest the descent and get back to an acceptable profile for landing.

My airline trains "2 in 1 out" where you get an engine failure right at 200 AGL on an ILS just as you start the missed (The fact that the engine is already spooling-up at the point of the engine failure is an advantage). It is very easy to see how if you were not aggresive enough in power and/or pitch, (surprised, not in the go-around mindset) even a little MD80 could come in contact with the runway during this maneuver. It does not seem like much of a stretch that this could happen to a 777 from further out like 400-500'...maybe more...hence the question.

Anyway, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

Didn't ruffle mine at all. I'll just sit back a let the investigators solve this one as it's way beyond my pay grade. I do think your comments/observations are are outside the bounds of this accident though.
As I understand it the airplane was stable, coupled to the ILS with A/T's engaged. No windshear present and only light to variable winds. No tail winds. One good thing about the FDR and other data recording boxes is that they already know what the airplane did, but why it did it is the big question.

 

[Flyingdutchman]

Me thinks something like this happened...

http://www.pocketpcfreak.com/archive/Airbus.jpg

 

[jke406]

Me thinks something like this happened...

http://www.pocketpcfreak.com/archive/Airbus.jpg

good stuff!

...although this general concept is apparently a real concern for the 787...

 

[GravityHater]

some details forwarded to me today:

At about 700 ft AGL, the auto throttle commanded engine acceleration. One engine started to rollback during and the other engine started to accelerate then 8-10 seconds later began to roll back. Once the flight crew noticed, they pushed the throttles up and the engines' EECs responded but the engines did not. It appears that no fuel was getting to the engines.

The investigation continues to look broadly for a cause of the dual engine rollbacks. Fuel exhaustion is the only item that has been positively ruled out. Aspects that the FAA believes the investigation is concentrating on are:

• Ice in the fuel somehow limiting the fuel flow to the engines. A maintenance message indicating excessive water in the center tank was set during taxi on the two previous flight legs, although it cleared itself both times. The airplane was being operated in a high humidity, cold environment, conducive to ice formation.

• Small-sized contamination building up in the engine fuel systems somehow limited the fuel flow to engine. All the fuel samples have tested for contamination of larger particles (sizes outside the fuel specification). Testing has been started looking for small particles (greater than 5 microns).

• Engine hardware failures sending inaccurate data to the engine electronic control (EEC) causing the EEC to demand insufficient fuel. A preliminary review of the EEC data from the right engine shows erratic combustor inlet pressure (P30). A leaking P30 sense line could cause this, or the EEC receiving a higher than actual fuel flow parameter.

• Software coding problem in the EEC causing the EEC to demand insufficient fuel. British Airways installed a new engine EEC software revision in December 2007. The software was approved in May 2006. There were several changes to the software as part of the revision. Two items seem remotely related to the accident: improvements to low power stall recovery logic and fan keep out zones for ground maintenance. The first two items would be related to a part 25 compliance issue, while the last two items would be related to a part 33 compliance issue.

As stated yesterday in this briefing paper, the electrical system anomalies noted earlier have been resolved, as describe below, and the conclusion now is that the electrical buses were powered until impact and performing as expected.

• The auxiliary power unit (APU) began its auto start sequence, even though the buses were still powered. In the days following the event, the flight crew has added additional details to their report. The crew now believes they turned the APU on prior to impact. There was sufficient time before the impact for the APU inlet door to open, but not for the APU fuel pump to turn on or the APU engine to start spooling up.

• The quick access recorder (QAR) saved data and shut down approximately 45 seconds prior to impact. The QAR saves data in batches. It is believed the QAR was working properly and was in the process of saving data when impact occurred, accounting for the “lost” 45 seconds of data.

• The fuel crossfeed valves were closed in flight according to the flight crew, but the switches were found in the open position and only one valve was open. In the days following the event, the flight crew has added additional details to their report. The crew now believes they opened the valves just prior to impact and the airplane lost power before both valves moved to the open position.

• The ram air turbine (RAT) was found deployed, even though the buses were still powered. It did not deploy until after the airplane came to a stop, as determined by the pristine condition of the turbine blades. The RAT either deployed due to electrical power loss during impact with a failed air/ground signal or the impact unlatched the RAT door.

Fuel system: Leads regarding water in the fuel and fuel contamination are continuing to be investigated. Fuel testing looking for small-sized contaminants (5 microns) is beginning. The tanks are still being drained and the team hopes to start evaluating the fuel system hardware tomorrow.

Engines: Component testing and teardown of the engine-driven fuel pumps and the fuel metering units is planned for later this week. The data from the electronic engine controls is still being analyzed. Rolls-Royce is planning an engine test, unscheduled as yet, to try and duplicate the rollbacks.

Crashworthiness: Cabin crew and passenger questionnaires indicate that the evacuation bell was faint, but the evacuation light was seen and the captain’s message to evacuate over the passenger address system was heard. Preliminary data indicates that the descent rate at impact was roughly 30 ft/sec. Dynamic seat requirements that became effective at the introduction of the Model 777 series airplanes require seats protect occupants for hard landing impact up to 35 ft/sec. The passenger with the broken leg was sitting next to the point where the right main landing gear punctured the fuselage and pushed into the cabin
Crashworthiness: There was only one serious injury, a compound fracture to the leg. The airplane landed on the main gear, bounced, came back down on the gear, then the gear failed, and the engines supported weight of the airplane. The descent rate at landing was 1500-1800 feet per minute. One of the main landing gear swung around and pushed slightly into the cabin. The other punctured the center fuel tank (empty) leaving a 1-by-2-foot hole. The report of a fuel leak is unconfirmed. All the slides deployed and the doors worked. Some passengers had to shuffle down the slides due to the slight angle. The flight deck door opened on its own during the landing. Some oxygen masks dropped.

 

[Spooky 2]

Thanks for the post. It only gets murkier at each little piece of info.

 

[Diesel-9]

deleted

 

[Papa Woody]

Maybe quality control of Chinese jet fuel is on par with all their other exports.....

 

[GravityHater]

I forgot to post the pictures (can you post pics to Flightinfo?)

http://www.slideshare.net/guest8db9fb/ba777-249086

 

[siucavflight]

It looks like it should be back in service in a few days.

 

[GravityHater]

I thought it would buff right out with some Meguires myself.

 

[AngelKing]

It looks like it should be back in service in a few days.

LMAO at another one of your post........you're a funny guy


AK

 

[EMB170Pilot]

LMAO at another one of your post........you're a funny guy


AK

I would laugh at him too if he crapped in his pants

 

[AngelKing]

I would laugh at him too if he crapped in his pants

Well hell yeah...who wouldn't?

AK

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Possible cause cited today. From KING 5 out of Seattle.

http://www.king5.com/business/stories/NW_020408BUB_777_london_crash_TP.8d7bc24f.html

 

[FlyingPieceOfSt]

Interesting Find....

Forwarded Email.


Concerning the Boeing 777 that crashed short of the runway in London
a few weeks ago.

Well, the British aircraft accident investigation board has finally
come around to the conclusion that I made several weeks ago: The
event was RF( Radio Frequency )-induced.

Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the
approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF
transmitter to block out any cell-phone triggered
devices. Apparently this system has a two mile range, and it caused
the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls) to sense a
"overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation
for the engines, simultaneously.

We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad
guys could use to bring down an airliner.

 

[PCL_128]

And this is why electronic airliners are a bad idea.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

And this is why electronic airliners are a bad idea.

The 787 was to have a side stick, but the old school Boeing Yoke mules insisted on eating out of thier lap...

Enjoy that classic jurassic.....

 

[goodgig]

Wow, it that's true, very scary.
RF amplifiers are cheap.

Is there a source for that email other than "an email"?

 

[PCL_128]

The 787 was to have a side stick, but the old school Boeing Yoke mules insisted on eating out of thier lap...

Enjoy that classic jurassic.....

Just call me a proud "yoke mule!"

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Just call me a proud "yoke mule!"

What kind of sound does a yoke mule make?

 

[PCL_128]

What kind of sound does a yoke mule make?

This oughta be good - I don't know, what sound does he make?

 

[legalalien]

That email has already been discredited. It did the rounds in the UK a few weeks ago. Gordon Brown was already onboard his plane which was taxing out when the BA 777 came in.

Unless somehow his motorcade got from the perimeter road, he got onto the aircraft and it pushed back in the time that it takes to glide in a 777!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

This oughta be good - I don't know, what sound does he make?

Probably similiar to the sound a B717 pilot makes who realizes that the oil from his pizza has stained his uniform pants in the most embarrassing location cause he was eating off his lap....

Love the yoke!


Or similiar to the sound a USAPA pilot makes when he gets assesed AGAIN and the Nic award stands

 

[regionaltard]

What kind of sound does a yoke mule make?

It goes: Rah rah rah, sis boom bah, goooooo ALPA!

 

[CaptJax]

Ice Caused Hard Landing at LHR

Sep 4, 12:20 PM EDT

UK report says ice caused hard landing at Heathrow

By ROBERT BARR
Associated Press Writer


LONDON (AP) -- Ice in fuel lines probably caused a British Airways jet to lose power and make a jarring emergency landing in London in January, investigators said Thursday.

The Air Accident Investigation Branch said the problem was unprecedented on any large modern aircraft, and it urged U.S. and European regulators to investigate what could be done to prevent a repeat.

Nineteen people suffered minor injuries when the British Airways Boeing 777 made a crash landing a thousand feet (300 meters) short of the runway on Jan. 17.

Investigators from the Air Accident Investigations Branch said that water, which is normally present in aircraft fuel, may have frozen because of unusually cold weather on a flight from Beijing to London on Jan. 17.

"Although the exact mechanism in which the ice has caused the restriction is still unknown in detail, it has been proven that ice could cause a restriction in the fuel feed system," the report said.

"The risk of recurrence needs to be addressed in the short term whilst the investigation continues."

The report called for the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency to work with Boeing and Rolls-Royce, maker of the plane's Trent 800 engines, to develop measures to reduce the risk of ice forming.

The report also recommended that the regulators review certification requirements to insure that fuel systems can cope with the possible accumulation and sudden release of ice.

Regulators, however, would be heading into unexplored territory.

"Extensive data analysis has revealed that not only has there never been a previous occurrence of this type on the Boeing 777, but also that this is the first known occurrence of this nature in any large modern transport aircraft," the Air Accident Investigation Branch said.

The flight had been uneventful until its final approach into Heathrow. The problem developed when the plane was at a height of 720 feet (220 meters), at which point power dropped in the right engine and, seven seconds later, in the left engine as well, the report said. That was consistent with a drop in the fuel flow, it said.

The Trent 800 engines have fuel oil heat exchangers that cool engine lubricating oil and warm fuel to prevent the formation of ice, the agency said.

However, there are no regulatory requirements that address the possibility of a sudden release of ice in large quantities, which might disrupt fuel flow.

"Water is always present, to some extent, in aircraft fuel systems and can be introduced during refueling or by condensation from moist air which has entered the fuel tanks through the tank vent system," the report said.

Water can be dissolved in the fuel, particles can be suspended in the fuel or free water in the form of drops or puddles can be present.

Ice crystals start to form when the fuel temperature dips to -1 to -3 Celsius (31-27 Fahrenheit), but generally remain suspended as discrete particles, the report said. At -18 Celsius (0 Fahrenheit) the crystals can stick to each other and form clumps.

"Below this temperature little is known about the properties of ice crystals in fuel and further research may be required to enable the aviation industry to understand this behavior," the report said.

Investigators reported "limited success" in trying to replicate an ice buildup in fuel with normal amounts of water, but have succeeded in interrupting fuel flows through the fuel oil heat exchanger by injecting large amounts of water into the fuel.

There was no evidence, the investigators said, that the amount of water in the British Airways plane's fuel was excessive.

The National Transportation Safety Board in Washington said in a statement Thursday that it supports the recommendations made by the British aviation safety agency to prevent similar accidents involving the Boeing 777.

The recommendations "show how international cooperation can lead to safety improvements that benefit the aviation community worldwide," NTSB acting chairman Mark Rosenker said.

The European Aviation Safety Agency said it had agreed to work with the FAA to require further measures on Boeing 777s using the Trent 800 engine.

British Airways, which operates 15 Boeing 777s with the Trent engines, noted in a statement that this was not the final report, and that the Air Accident Investigation Branch had made no recommendations relating specifically to its fleet.

"We will work closely with the relevant regulatory authorities and will comply with any requirements issued to all operators of Boeing 777s powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines," British Airways said.