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