British Airways Attempts 777 Soft Field Landing

[SpauldingSmails]

Was listening to BBC raidio on NPR this morning. When interviewed at the scene, the captain kept saying "There must be some mistake. It must have been something mechanical. This doesn't happen to British pilots"!

Uhh, Nigel. There's about 500,000 lbs of "doesn't happen" sitting on the threshold then.

 

[ubpilot]

No such thing as pilot error over there

That's right! The error must be the American built plane!

 

[Varmint]

That's right! The error must be the American built plane!

I seem to remember a european built aircraft landing itself in the trees at an airshow a few years back...maybe its just a human error...the kind your parents made when they had you.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

I seem to remember a european built aircraft landing itself in the trees at an airshow a few years back...maybe its just a human error...the kind your parents made when they had you.

Ummm... I am just guessing here, but I am thinking ubpilot was joking.

Now, who's parents forgot to "pull up?"

 

[Prog 2/2]

There was no fire. Wonder if they ran it out of fuel. If it was, they must of known of their fuel situation and I wonder if they figured they could make it home. If it was that would suck; they were so close.

"figured they could make it home" ?

Is this the kind of mindset you operate your jet with?

I don't know about your world, but long haul flying is dictated by the numbers, with fuel qty being at the top of the list. No "figuring" about it. You either most certainly can, or you don't try.

Again, to suggest that a crew of 3 sat on their hands and allowed a low fuel situation to develop into a fuel exhaustion event is ridiculous.

 

[Prog 2/2]

There was no fire. Wonder if they ran it out of fuel. If it was, they must of known of their fuel situation and I wonder if they figured they could make it home. If it was that would suck; they were so close.

As to the no fire automatically= no fuel leap to conclusions, you may want to review the combustion properties of Jet-A (or TC-1 since they fueled in PEK) and the requirements for ignition, then take a look a the AAIB prelim.

 

[pilotsh]

"figured they could make it home" ?

Is this the kind of mindset you operate your jet with?

I don't know about your world, but long haul flying is dictated by the numbers, with fuel qty being at the top of the list. No "figuring" about it. You either most certainly can, or you don't try.

Again, to suggest that a crew of 3 sat on their hands and allowed a low fuel situation to develop into a fuel exhaustion event is ridiculous.

Did you not get the memo about the BA 747 making an emergency landing for low fuel in Scotland becuase they went from LAX to England on 3 engines? That's like what, a 13 hour flight? I'm sure they never had that mindset. Or how about the Air Transat flight that ran out of gas? I think their "numbers" weren't right on the money before the engines flamed out. Or how about the Avianca flight? Bet the thought never crossed their minds either. It's not ridiculous becuase it's happened in the past, and I'm sure it'll happen again in the future. To err is human...

 

[Prog 2/2]

Did you not get the memo about the BA 747 making an emergency landing for low fuel in Scotland becuase they went from LAX to England on 3 engines? That's like what, a 13 hour flight? I'm sure they never had that mindset. Or how about the Air Transat flight that ran out of gas? I think their "numbers" weren't right on the money before the engines flamed out. Or how about the Avianca flight? Bet the thought never crossed their minds either. It's not ridiculous becuase it's happened in the past, and I'm sure it'll happen again in the future. To err is human...

I got all the memos. And obviously spent a bit more time than you in trying to understand them.

Your first example precisely illustrates the point I'm making. At some point during that flight it became apparent that landing at EGLL was no longer an option, so the crew did something else. They landed elsewhere. They didn't just continue on because they "figured" they would make it.

What Air Transat has to do with this I'm not sure. You are aware of why they ran out of fuel, right?

As for Avianca, they most certainly did know about their situation, and were trying to do something about it. Unfortunately, they weren't able to communicate their predicament clearly enough to get the help they needed.

The BA flight in question suffered from no such handicap. They made no mention of any impaired fuel state, no request for clearance to a closer alternate, no PAN/MAYDAY whatsoever.

Once more, to suggest that the 3 guys in the pointy end of the BA jet sat on their hands and let a fuel exhaustion event overtake them just because, well, "they were trying to make it", is ludicrous.

To err is most certainly human. But the error of indifference to fuel qty after a 10 hour flight is not one that is routinely made, and it wasn't in this case.


All this is moot, anyway, as the AAIB prelim makes no mention of the engines being inoperative. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case.

 

[Squanto]

My first thought was that it was an Autothrottle Failure......Does anyone know if it is BA SOP to use the ATs?....If it is 3 in the morning and I am brain dead I will use them but not anytime else. Anytime a mechanical/computer part has totally failed on my airplane the first thing the engineers will say is, "that shouldn't have happened". No S##t.....thats why I'm not a big AT fan below 5000'.....Peace Out..

 

[Harlequin]

Was listening to BBC raidio on NPR this morning. When interviewed at the scene, the captain kept saying "There must be some mistake. It must have been something mechanical. This doesn't happen to British pilots"!

And this is what he really said...

" As British Airways flight and cabin crew, we are trained on a regular basis to deal with emergency situations.
We have procedures to follow and everyone knows their role.
Flying is about team work and we had an outstanding team on board yesterday.
As captain of the aircraft I am proud to say that every member of my team played their part expertly yesterday, displaying the highest standards of skill and professionalism, no-one more so than my Senior First Officer John Coward who was the handling pilot on the final approach and did the most remarkable job.
My first officer Conor Magenis also continually assisted.
I want to pay tribute to the cabin crew and Cabin Service Director Sharron Eaton-Mercer who carried out the evacuation of the passengers with speed, efficiency and care, some incurring minor injuries in the process.
It was typical of Sharon's selflessness that she took time to check that we on the flight deck were all right before going down the chute herself.
I want to thank the passengers for their calmness and good sense in extremely unfamiliar circumstances.
I wish those who suffered injuries a speedy and complete recovery.
I also want to mention the fire crews, the ambulance service and the police for the huge part they played in dealing with this incident.
As you know, an investigation is being carried out by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch so it's not possible for me to make any public comment on the circumstances of what happened."


Source:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7196748.stm


Perhaps some of you would like to refrain from the Anglo phobic BS and concentrate on the facts. Like these for example:


http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

 

[Prog 2/2]

My first thought was that it was an Autothrottle Failure......Does anyone know if it is BA SOP to use the ATs?....If it is 3 in the morning and I am brain dead I will use them but not anytime else. Anytime a mechanical/computer part has totally failed on my airplane the first thing the engineers will say is, "that shouldn't have happened". No S##t.....thats why I'm not a big AT fan below 5000'.....Peace Out..

The Autothrottle system on most Boeings is simply a motor (or two) that moves the throttle lever to a computed angle based on the inputs from a bunch of different sources. If you read the AAIB prelim, you'll find that the autothrottles were engaged and were commanding an appropriate increase in thrust that didn't come.

I can't speak for BA specifically, but I'm sure they follow the standard Boeing guidelines wrt autothrottle use. That being; autothrottles used all the time, with the recommendation that they be off for hand flying and prior to landing, when appropriate.

 

[Spooky 2]

My first thought was that it was an Autothrottle Failure......Does anyone know if it is BA SOP to use the ATs?....If it is 3 in the morning and I am brain dead I will use them but not anytime else. Anytime a mechanical/computer part has totally failed on my airplane the first thing the engineers will say is, "that shouldn't have happened". No S##t.....thats why I'm not a big AT fan below 5000'.....Peace Out..

Boeing SOPs require the use of AT for all landings, hand flown or otherwise. You can turn em off but that is operating outside the Mfg. procedures.

 

[F/O]

Boeing SOPs require the use of AT for all landings, hand flown or otherwise. You can turn em off but that is operating outside the Mfg. procedures.

Even for the classic 737? The delay in autothrust response to small pitch changes lags horrifically when handflying the old ones. More trouble than it's worth.

 

[epic!]

"Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally until the aircraft was established on late finals for Runway 27L. At approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down, 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. The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface.
The investigation is now focussed on more detailed analysis of the Flight Recorder information, collecting further recorded information from various system modules and examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation."



http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

 

[Prog 2/2]

Boeing SOPs require the use of AT for all landings, hand flown or otherwise. You can turn em off but that is operating outside the Mfg. procedures.

Sounds like you're thinking of the Bus.

A/T's are reqd for autoland, recommended for everything else, and reqd to be off prior to landing for non autolands.

 

[Spooky 2]

Even for the classic 737? The delay in autothrust response to small pitch changes lags horrifically when handflying the old ones. More trouble than it's worth.

This problem has pretty much been eliminated in the 777. They work very well and most if not all pilots follow the prescribed procedures and use them as directed.

 

[suupah]

"Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally until the aircraft was established on late finals for Runway 27L. At approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down, 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. The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface.
The investigation is now focussed on more detailed analysis of the Flight Recorder information, collecting further recorded information from various system modules and examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation."



http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

no mention here whether the engines were flamed out or not. That should be easy to discern and us inquiring pilot types are dying to know

 

[Peter Griffin]

He probably just forgot proper soft field technique and let the nose touch early...

 

[gump88]

They needed the GE engines instead of those old RRs!!!! Typical Brits! LOL

 

[Spooky 2]

They needed the GE engines instead of those old RRs!!!! Typical Brits! LOL

GE are great engines but if you were to compare the number of SB out for the GE's as compared to the RR and especially the P&W you find that the RR are way ahead with fewer SB and IFS. Both DAL and AA use the RR's and have great experience with these engines. I don't think this will be an engine problem as opposed to a fuel problem. Hell, they may never figure this one out.