BA 777 "lands short" at Heathrow

[Britpilot]

I see you edited your post to make it even nastier.

I see you have an ex ValuJet plane as your avitar. Work for Citrus? Couldn't get on with BA eh? Sorry to hear that.

Yes I do, you're powers of deduction are quite astounding.
I did apply to BA once back in the early nineties, they sent me a very nice letter to inform me that they were only hiring from their own school in Prestwick. It all worked out, I much prefer living in the US and enjoy my position at ValuJet, as you like to call us. I assume that was some sort of veiled insult on your behalf, very original I must say, first time I've heard that one.
I am a little choosy who I enjoy a beer with and I'm afraid you would not fit the bill.
Good afternoon madam.

 

[retired guy]

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....

 

[John Pennekamp]

Yes I do, you're powers of deduction are quite astounding.
I did apply to BA once back in the early nineties, they sent me a very nice letter to inform me that they were only hiring from their own school in Prestwick. It all worked out, I much prefer living in the US and enjoy my position at ValuJet, as you like to call us. I assume that was some sort of veiled insult on your behalf, very original I must say, first time I've heard that one.
I am a little choosy who I enjoy a beer with and I'm afraid you would not fit the bill.
Good afternoon madam.

Clearly no big loss on my part. You are most certainly poor company.

 

[Crossky]

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....

Nice pic in the avatar. Looks 'analog', and real.

Yea, my bit is since the pilots said (in the AAIB statement) the autothrottles commanded a thrust increase and it didn't happen, and then they applied the thrust levers forward and it didn't happen, presumably while the engines were failing, that the A/C had some sort of autothrottle failure (power loss to them) or electronic fuel system failure of some sort. If the autothrottles failed or lost power would they disconnect automatically or not? If this happened would the engines fail? Would you be able to use the thrust levers manually if the autothrottles failed or lost power? Thanks 777 drivers.

 

[Spooky 2]

Those BA pilots are still too much. I was working for Lockheed on their L-1011 program when BA bought a bunch of the TriStars. In those days in addition to the sim training, we did 25 hours training in the actual a/c. On my first training flight as part of the instructor crew, we had two BA Captains as our students. I was flying in the FE seat and we had an instructor pilot in the right seat and one of the BA guys in the left seat to start off.

I noticed a nose wheel steering wheel handle on the co-pilot side in addition to the normal one on the left side. I asked the instructor pilot what that was all about. He said BA insisted on Lockheed installing a nose wheel steering handle on the right side and it was cheaper not to remove the left one, so it remains.

Here's what surprised me: the BA student Captain said "Oh, BA Captains don't actually taxi the airplane, that's beneath us, that's what we have co-pilots for"!!

And you were foolish enough to believe that? BTW, all B777 have both left and right tillers installed howver I cannot recall ever seeing anyone doing any serious taxing from the right side.

 

[Papa Woody]

My Volvo ran out of gas.

My gas pedal would not respond.

 

[Spooky 2]

My Volvo ran out of gas.

My gas pedal would not respond.

The Brits are reporting that the aircraft had 10 + tonnes of fuel on it when it started the approach, and the elctrical system was operating normally.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

When an airplane runs out of fuel, both engines do not quit at the same time.

 

[Spooky 2]

When an airplane runs out of fuel, both engines do not quit at the same time.

That's a very good observation and does throw a different light on the subject. Here is another one. If the crew had the two crossfeeds open to balance fuel thay may have run a wing tank dry and in turn flamed out both engines at once. Boeing does not approve of fuel balancing during this phase of flight and in addition the aircraft is not very susceptible to any out of balance fuel condition. There may be some sort of an EICAS warning for this fuel config during landing but I cannot recall. Nothing more than pure wild ass speculation at this point so I guess we should stand back and let the pros sort it out.

 

[Papa Woody]

The Brits are reporting that the aircraft had 10 + tonnes of fuel on it when it started the approach, and the elctrical system was operating normally.

Yeah...and it had some 100 tonnes of fuel when it left Beijing.

What matters is how many tonnes of fuel it had when the engines spooled down.

My guess is ZERO tonnes.

 

[Spooky 2]

Yeah...and it had some 100 tonnes of fuel when it left Beijing.

What matters is how many tonnes of fuel it had when the engines spooled down.

My guess is ZERO tonnes.

Hey woody with all your experience why don't you just call them up and tell them how it was. What a fooking idiot you are. BTW how much time do you have in the 777 or anyother Boeing ailiner for that matter?

 

[ForgedBlade]

That's a very good observation and does throw a different light on the subject. Here is another one. If the crew had the two crossfeeds open to balance fuel thay may have run a wing tank dry and in turn flamed out both engines at once. Boeing does not approve of fuel balancing during this phase of flight and in addition the aircraft is not very susceptible to any out of balance fuel condition. There may be some sort of an EICAS warning for this fuel config during landing but I cannot recall. Nothing more than pure wild ass speculation at this point so I guess we should stand back and let the pros sort it out.

You can leave the X-Feeds open during landing and even run one tank dry and it won't matter. It's the 777, not a 737! Wait until the final report comes out!

 

[Prog 2/2]

Nice pic in the avatar. Looks 'analog', and real.

Yea, my bit is since the pilots said (in the AAIB statement) the autothrottles commanded a thrust increase and it didn't happen, and then they applied the thrust levers forward and it didn't happen,
presumably while the engines were failing,
that the A/C had some sort of autothrottle failure (power loss to them) or electronic fuel system failure of some sort. If the autothrottles failed or lost power would they disconnect automatically or not? If this happened would the engines fail? Would you be able to use the thrust levers manually if the autothrottles failed or lost power? Thanks 777 drivers.

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.

 

[Papa Woody]

Hey woody with all your experience why don't you just call them up and tell them how it was. What a fooking idiot you are. BTW how much time do you have in the 777 or anyother Boeing ailiner for that matter?

Why does my experience in a 777 matter?

I am not claiming any special knowledge behind my conclusion that the MOST LIKELY explanation for this accident is fuel exhaustion.

That is: the engines, electrical system, A/T's, etc., were operating normally. And the engines did what engines do when they stop receiving fuel!

Those 108-inch fans suddenly became a liability out there in the London fog as they defied the thrust-lever-angles, instead defiantly milling the wind.

Of course, my primitive C-150 on mogas lacks the technological wizardry to keep its engine operating without fuel: maybe someone on this board with 777 or other Boeing experience could explain how Boeings are designed to run without gas.

If I were speculating about some obscure "cross-feed during landing, EICAS message, A/T-commanded-but-not-delivered thrust lever angle computer glitch", then you could conceivably question my time-in-type-or-manufacturer-model.

But regardless, we all know what most likely occurred.

And thanks for the insult!

 

[Spooky 2]

Why does my experience in a 777 matter?

I am not claiming any special knowledge behind my conclusion that the MOST LIKELY explanation for this accident is fuel exhaustion.

That is: the engines, electrical system, A/T's, etc., were operating normally. And the engines did what engines do when they stop receiving fuel!

Those 108-inch fans suddenly became a liability out there in the London fog as they defied the thrust-lever-angles, instead defiantly milling the wind.

Of course, my primitive C-150 on mogas lacks the technological wizardry to keep its engine operating without fuel: maybe someone on this board with 777 or other Boeing experience could explain how Boeings are designed to run without gas.

If I were speculating about some obscure "cross-feed during landing, EICAS message, A/T-commanded-but-not-delivered thrust lever angle computer glitch", then you could conceivably question my time-in-type-or-manufacturer-model.

But regardless, we all know what most likely occurred.

And thanks for the insult!

Fuel starvation ceratinly could have been the problem and I simply don't have the answer at this hour. My experience in the 777 is limited to about 3,500 hours and some significant training experience at both the airline I worked for and Boeing. I'm most troubled by the fact that neither Boeing nor BA has has any type of fleet inspection stand down which one would have expected if there was a known aircraft mechancal issue. Your attitude on the other hand is simply that of a pitiful observer with no acknowledged information regarding how the airplane operates much less how BA crews are trained, dispatched, or for that matter anything operational other than he must have run our of fuel. Forgive me if I'm wrong about your qualification to speculate on this accident as if there is something I'm missing, shame on me, otherwise, please.......

 

[michael707767]

Fuel starvation ceratinly could have been the problem and I simply don't have the answer at this hour. My experience in the 777 is limited to about 3,500 hours and some significant training experience at both the airline I worked for and Boeing. ..

question for ya. What is the standard flap setting for landing in a 777, 25 or 30? Also I read somewhere that the procedures for most if not all airlines require the use of autothrottles all the way to landing, whether or not it's an autoland. Is that true?

 

[poppi]

Learmount suggested, however, that water could have got into the fuel, frozen at high altitude, thawed as the plane came into land and caused a slush in the tanks. This may have blocked fuel to both engines. Reports yesterday suggested that BA ground staff were warned to check the fuel mix in all its 777s.

 

[Hvy]

question for ya. What is the standard flap setting for landing in a 777, 25 or 30? Also I read somewhere that the procedures for most if not all airlines require the use of autothrottles all the way to landing, whether or not it's an autoland. Is that true?

No...it's not true.

 

[Filkster]

I'll go with an electrical interruption causing a loss of signal to the fadec followed by the gear coming down causing some kind of boeing sofware subroutine to decide the thrust levers are not working and commanding the engines to do whatever they are programmed to do in that situation.

RF
Lets keep Bill Gates out of Aviation.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1301161,00.html

 

[Spooky 2]

No...it's not true.

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.

 

[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.