BA 777 "lands short" at Heathrow

[pianoman]

Very Strange indeed.. glad everyone got out ok... but with all that damage to the under carrage, center tank ruptured for sure.. and no Fire?? wow.... BA does not have dispatchers... but I am told they do re-dispatches for the long haul flights so they can reduce the fuel loads thus costs at the out stations.. re-dispatches can be a slipery slope if not monitored carefully.. just saying.. Im sure time will tell, its just too Ironic that they just managed to touch down w/o engine power just over the fence... almost like our old engine out emergency training and making it to an open field...

Well the center tank fuel is burned first so there probably wasn't much in there. Definitely not if it indeed flamed out.

FWIW we do redispatches routinely at CAL - I wouldn't really call it unsafe unless the pilots are lying about the fuel to get home. Pretty cut and dried- either you have the gas and go on or you don't and you get a free trip to Goose Bay. Inconvenient definitely but not risky.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

I was a firefighter for six years and what I find interesting is that I haven't seen evidence that the scene was "foamed" to prevent oxigen feed to the fuel spill that should have resulted from the left landing gear going through the wing.

Things that make you go, Hum?

 

[400A]

LUCY!!!! You've got some splainin' to do!!!!!!

 

[regionaltard]

Similar to Egypt air; after the F/O went nuts and crashed their plane, the country of Egypt went into denial "Our men here don't have mental problems! It must have been something else!"

About what I'd expect from people who live in a part of the world where strapping some C4 to your body and exploding it in a crowd of innocents is the equivalent of taking Communion.

 

[Microclimates]

I don't think this one of your typical GA accidents where the NTSB again concludes with.....'determined that the probable cause of this accident was fuel starvation resulting from the....'!

Actually you can ask Avianca and a senior JFK controller about that one. Awhile back, but an Avianca 707 crashed on final due to fuel exhustion... NTSB concluded that among the factors was a misuse of 'minimum fuel' as opposed to 'fuel emergency'

 

[EWR_FO]

Actually you can ask Avianca and a senior JFK controller about that one. Awhile back, but an Avianca 707 crashed on final due to fuel exhustion... NTSB concluded that among the factors was a misuse of 'minimum fuel' as opposed to 'fuel emergency'

I don't think the contoller was faulted because no one declared an emergency.

 

[Britpilot]

May have just been a visual approach gone bad.. anyone who's landed on this runway have any input?

BA does not fly visual approaches. As far as i am aware it is all ILS into LHR.

 

[elag777]

So Brit pilots are invincible?

And they don't have engine failures at departure (KLAX), determine it's ok to press on to London with 3 engines, then realize they don't have enough gas to make it so they need to stop anyway??

Maybe landing considerably overweight 100,000lbs? was not a good idea?

 

[ttflyer]

Maybe landing considerably overweight 100,000lbs? was not a good idea?

Don't some of those big airplanes have fuel dump? I thought I read about that somewhere....

 

[FCPhotography]

777 guys? How long is a flight of that nature? If the weather was good, no alternate, not much extra fuel. Maybe one engine did flame out earlier and maybe they were keeping it amongst themselves. Might explain why one witness said louder than normal (other engine at full power for a little bit if gear and flaps are down and you are below the power curve dragging it in)

A better explanation would be just bad luck and a bunch of geese. A C-5 once lost 3 engines out of Dover and made it back around after takeoff.