Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

BA 777 "lands short" at Heathrow

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
The prelim report seems to indicate a lot of worthless speculation (and lame stereotypes) on this thread were predictably off base. I think of BA crews as colleagues in this crazy business. I would hope they wouldn't hurry to judge me in a negative light if I were ever in an accident. It's pretty disappointing to see a bunch of professionals talk this way. Let the investigators do their job before we try to make an argument that their 'culture' is unsafe because of one incident.
 
Last edited:
The crew was doing a press conference today. They say the engines failed to respond. A video of the wreckage shows the APU inlet door open. I think one poster mentioned he saw the RAT deployed.

As soon as you shell out both operating engines (by filling them with Heathrow mud, for example) you'll end up with unpowered AC busses. In my limited 777 understanding, this will result in an APU autostart and RAT deployment.

Engines could have been running until impact, and still display that evidence post-crash.
 
Sounds like their MacAfee anti-virus susbscription expired.:smash:
 
The prelim report seems to indicate a lot of worthless speculation (and lame stereotypes) on this thread were predictably off base. I think of BA crews as colleagues in this crazy business. I would hope they wouldn't hurry to judge me in a negative light if I were ever in an accident. It's pretty disappointing to see a bunch of professionals talk this way. Let the investigators do their job before we try to make an argument that their 'culture' is unsafe because of one incident.
Exactly.
 
the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond. Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond.
Sounds like to me this was an over dependence on automation. If you use autothrottle all the time and they fail to work at on 600 AGL then why didn't the crew attempt to disconnect it?. Finally the crew pushed thrust levers up with no avail without disconnecting the autothrottle system. Yeah right. I'll be willing to wager that the engines were starting to spool up just before impact. As noted by the grass inside the engines picture. Are British Pilots system managers or are they pilots?
 
Last edited:
Sounds like to me this was an over dependence on automation. If you use autothrottle all the time and they fail to work at on 600 AGL then why didn't the crew attempt to disconnect it?. Finally the crew pushed thrust levers up with no avail without disconnecting the autothrottle system. Yeah right.

The APU inlet door was open and that seems to indicate that they indeed had a loss of AC power.
The "automation" doesn't work with battery power only, the A/T droped off line when this happaned (A/P too) the A/T demanding more power was most likelly just prior of the GEN's going off line as the N2 started to drop
 
Last edited:
I dunno about the grass in the engine having much to do with the engines making power. You throw anything at the dirt that fast, it's gonna get messy. The engines might've been spooling down, causing the blades to break when the nacelle was deformed.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top