BA 777 "lands short" at Heathrow

[Britpilot]

But regardless, we all know what most likely occurred.

No, not all of us. Some of us think it may be something less obvious.

 

[Skank]

On just about every page of this thread someone chimes in with "We shouldn`t speculate about this, wait for the official report". I`m here to tell you that we are pilots, and speculation is what we do. I have said it before: this web site is an electronic version of a ready room or pilot lounge. Pilots gather, pilots BS, pilots speculate. Get use to it and get over it. Retired Guy out....

Maybe, but all hat speculation stacked up is about as meaningful as a steaming pile of excrement.

 

[Dizel8]

But regardless, we all know what most likely occurred.

I haven't got the foggiest what occured, the initial report does not mention fuel starvation, they simply mention that thrust did not increase when commanded.

All indications were normal untill 600' AGL. There was a significant amount of fuel spilled on the ground, but thankfully no fire.

At this brief moment in time, it appears the pilots may have saved the day, the future will show if this holds true, but let's hope it does.

 

[bubbers44]

I haven't got the foggiest what occured, the initial report does not mention fuel starvation, they simply mention that thrust did not increase when commanded.

All indications were normal untill 600' AGL. There was a significant amount of fuel spilled on the ground, but thankfully no fire.

At this brief moment in time, it appears the pilots may have saved the day, the future will show if this holds true, but let's hope it does.

I hope so too. I was reading this morning of the tests they were doing on jet fuel waxing on the long polar flights now being flown. Since they flew over the northern half of Russia and the temps over the UK were colder than normal according to one report that day I am sure they will look at that. With an idle descent to 1000 ft with low fuel flow both engines could be affected during the initial spool up attempt and not be noticed until 600 ft. It is too early to know the cause now but running out of fuel was not the cause.

 

[CTflyer]

Wasn't there a 767 on the way to Hawaii a few years ago that had a dual engine flame-out due to some fuel pump/ transfer procedure or something? They re-lite of course.

A UAL 767-300 was coming out of Hawaii on the way to the mainland and during climbout the capt asked the FO to balance the fuel as they were about 400 to 600 lbs heavy on one side. FO then proceeded to shut off the fuel pumps on the lighter side BEFORE opening the fuel transfer and within a few minutes both engines flamed out and they managed to restart them and I think they landed in Kona....

Even though the FO did the fuel balance procedure wrong the engines still should of not flamed out...

 

[Spooky 2]

Sorry Heavy but it is true. The Boeing FCTM states that the AT's should be used for all landings, hand flown or AL. This is a departure from thre B757/767. I don't have my manuals in front of me at this hour but I can quote Chapt. and verse out of the FCTM later today if need be.

Normal landing flaps are 30. Alternate landing flaps are 25. 1 EO flaps are 20 but if you have already gone to 30 and then lose the engine you can do a 30 flap landing. AL are done with 30 only. The airplane is capable of AL with an engine out. BTW, I don't any of this has anything to do with the BA accident.

Finally got to the books and the statement in the Boeing 777 FCTM, page 1.33, dated Oct 31, 2007 says the following. Auto Throttles; "Autothrottle use is recommended during all phases of flight. When in manual flight, autotrotlte use is also recommended, however manual thrust control may be used to maintain pilot proficiency." So there you have it. Not exactly carved in stone, but pretty darn close in Boeing speak.

Hope this helps more than it hurts.

 

[-FlyAuburn-]

Originally Posted by Jetjockey
Any landing you can walk away from.........................


One passenger broke their leg and probably didn't walk off. So I guess that means it wasn't all that great a landing. Ha!

 

[DiamondFlyer]

Since everyone's speculating, what happens if you sucked up a flock of birds? Is it possible to suck up a flock to the point of a compressor stall, or worse?

Reason I ask is that I nearly wiped out a flock in my Baron the other day, and I suppose I couldn't help adding to the speculation.

 

[bubbers44]

Yes it is possible but wouldn't they have noticed the birds fly by?

 

[bubbers44]

The pilots didn't know why the engines failed to respond according to the captains statement. He would have mentioned encountering a flock of birds.

 

[DiamondFlyer]

Roger that. I didn't say that Captain said anything about birds, I am just curious is something could have fodd'ed out the engines, such as birds, or whatever.

When I worked at a three letter agency, we studied the possibility of someone or something fodd'ing out engines at a low level. While I'm not attempting to inject conspiracy, the scenario is curiously similar to something we predicted and even practiced.

Though this is likely mechanical/electrical/software, it sure is odd.

 

[Crossky]

Lots of conclusion jumping going on here.

First, you presume the engines failed, or were failing. There's nothing in the AAIB prelim that even hints at the engines failing. Not responsive to a thrust lever input is not the same as failing.

Second, where do you get the idea that the A/T system failed? The prelim clearly states that the A/T were calling for an appropriate increase in thrust that didn't materialize. The A/T is just a servo (or two) that moves the throttle lever to specified angle based upon the inputs from a bunch of different sources. If the power to drive the servos quits(which has not yet been proven in this case), then big deal, you just move the T/L by hand as you've always done. No A/T doesn't mean no engines.

Wth that said, an electronic glitch that impedes the ability of the engine EEC's to meter the proper amount of fuel based on the T/L angle is a different story.

Excuse me Mr. arrogant 777 systems guy, I was just asking a question, I haven't taken 777 ground school (or any Boeing for that matter). The A/T FAILED to facilitate increased thrust by the engines. The engines FAILED to produce increased thrust demanded by the A/T. I concurr that the engines could've stayed at a previous thrust level into the grass. I realize that the A/T could've not responded because of a failure somewhere else, I was asking what could have it been, and you jump all over me like I'm a Nazi.

I wasn't baiting anyone with 'fuel exhaustion' charges either. I didn't deserve your condescending response. Good day.

 

[goodgig]

It must have been someones tray table.

 

[Old School 737]

Had a line check yesterday and the check airman is friends with one of the Boeing test pilots. He said that one throttle retarded and then the other pushed up to compensate for the the other. Nothing happened and when the crew saw what was going on they tried to make a thrust correction and did not get the proper or required thrust. Said Boeing is very concerned and that it looks like the crew did everything correct and did a good job of not stalling out. Also said the fuel truck or tanks that last fueled the aircraft were being look at.

 

[Prog 2/2]

Finally got to the books and the statement in the Boeing 777 FCTM, page 1.33, dated Oct 31, 2007 says the following. Auto Throttles; "Autothrottle use is recommended during all phases of flight. When in manual flight, autotrotlte use is also recommended, however manual thrust control may be used to maintain pilot proficiency." So there you have it. Not exactly carved in stone, but pretty darn close in Boeing speak.

Hope this helps more than it hurts.

Thanks for digging that up.

It's a bit different, as you pointed out, than the Boeing 75/76 guidance.

Does it specify that the A/T's must be disconnected prior to a manual landing ? Or does the 77 mirror the Bus in that they are armed and active until touchdown?

Just curious.

 

[spg2bmd]

At least they didnt make me do a go-around... again.
PS, Speedbird sucks.

 

[Flyingdutchman]

Here is the new runway at LHR specially made for BA pilots....

 

[Spooky 2]

Thanks for digging that up.

It's a bit different, as you pointed out, than the Boeing 75/76 guidance.

Does it specify that the A/T's must be disconnected prior to a manual landing ? Or does the 77 mirror the Bus in that they are armed and active until touchdown?

Just curious.

The AT's start to retard at 25' when your hand flying the airplane. The AT system disconnents when you move the reverse levers aft. Good practice calls for the PF to follow through with the appropriate hand on the thrust levers at all times during the landing procedure so as to be ready to manually override if required.

 

[poppi]

Computer system suspected in Heathrow 777 crash

experts have suggested that the simultaneous failure of both engines of the BA 777 which last week crash-landed at Heathrow must have been caused by a computer glitch, the Times reports.

 

[Spooky 2]

Computer system suspected in Heathrow 777 crash

experts have suggested that the simultaneous failure of both engines of the BA 777 which last week crash-landed at Heathrow must have been caused by a computer glitch, the Times reports.

Right.....the press is always spot on in the accident investigations. The officials might as well pack up and go home. Case closed!