# Pilot gave no warning before Boeing 777 crash, reports say



## Royzee617 (Jan 18, 2008)

Pilot gave no warning before Boeing 777 crash, reports say
just one of many reports none of which get to the meat of the matter.
Winston-Salem Journal | Pilot gave no warning before Boeing 777 crash, reports say

TV coverage and newspaper reporting has been the usual grab bag of ignorance and misinformation etc. One also gets the sneaky uneasy feeling of disappointment in the way they trump up the "what could have been" angle.

My money's on dodgy Chinese fuel making the engines quit. It's as plausible as other contentions such as wind shear, pigeons, UFOs or pilot error. All [but one] have precedents in flight accidents.

Shame coz it's ruined the 777's perfect record.


----------



## Torch (Jan 18, 2008)

The story of completley losing power is hard to swallow,the big birds have redundancy to prevent that happening. Maybe just pilot error,over worked,weird.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 18, 2008)

Yes, it is a long way from PRC. 

I thought it was worrying the way all the sheep-like media TV and papers lauded the pilot. It's too early. He could have cocked it up and then had to pancake. 

Another puzzle is why no one asked about it going silent when/if the engines did pack up. IME there is a lot of noise from the engines on approach. The silence would be deafening as they say.

WTC it is going to run and run on forums like this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2008)

There was no silence. The Passengers said that it felt like a normal landing and that the engines could be heard.

It is too early to speculate what happened.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 18, 2008)

No it isn't. They are hiding something.... or is it just that the media are idiots?

It's the first crash for this magnificent plane ever. That is extraordinary.

Shouldn't Boeing ground them JIC?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2008)

Royzee617 said:


> or is it just that the media are idiots?



BINGO!!!!


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 18, 2008)

I should be able to find out soon because my daughter told me her art teacher claims to be best mates with the pilot - but they have not yet discussed the incident. Maybe Monday.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 18, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdhuGbvPJzo_
interesting comments


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2008)

Royzee617 said:


> I should be able to find out soon because my daughter told me her art teacher claims to be best mates with the pilot - but they have not yet discussed the incident. Maybe Monday.



NO that is not how things work.

A. They will not discuss anything until they know what happened. You dont discuss accidents with the public before you know what happened. 

Do the Police tell the public the details of a murder before they have solved the crime?

B. They will not ground the fleet because there is no reason to ground the fleet. Why cause alarm when there is no need to cause alarm. 

C. Accident investigations take time. They have to recreate the whole incident and try to piece together what happened. The Flight Data Recorder or Black Box (which is not black by the way) only gives you part of the information. You dont rush to conclusions and then possibly miss something that could save lives in the future.

As Joe said the media is idiots and they do not know what they are talking about.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2008)

If he's smart he wouldn't say much.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 18, 2008)

THe guys from Rolls will be all over that


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 19, 2008)

There are some unique or at least fairly special circumstances with this accident.

First it comes out that it was not the captain who was at the controls. He didn't hog the glory. Hmmm.

This is probably the world's most modern airliner with a longish service record. Thus it is the most thoroughly equipped as regards monitoring.

The plane is essentially intact - dunno why there was no fire - so they can inspect it intact away from the public etc. Compare this to Lockerbie.

Sort of lucky it happened when it did - odd timing though - if it had happened over water it might remain a mystery with no survivors. One recalls the early Comet accidents over the Med.

Odd that depsite all the spotters around LHR there is not yet available a single photo let alone vid of this arrival. No CCTV around the runway?

On TV last night they were talking a bit about the problem the pilot had and they mentioned sudden double engine failure. No mention of a birdstrike etc.

Because of the uncertainty as to the origin of the unusual double engine out I think they must be behind the scenes considering actions such as inspections and maybe selective grounding.

Dunno whether I'd like to be going for a flight in one of these tomorrow. On the one hand it is capable of survivable crash landings but this double engine out is what the naysayers always warned us about in this new type of plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If he's smart he wouldn't say much.



Exactly. I have been part of an accident investigation before and you are told not to talk about incident.

A. If the Press finds out they manipulate it and run wild with it and then everything but the facts are what is known.

B. You can get in some serious trouble for doing so.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2008)

Royzee you are really blowing this out of proportion. 



Royzee617 said:


> There are some unique or at least fairly special circumstances with this accident.
> 
> First it comes out that it was not the captain who was at the controls. He didn't hog the glory. Hmmm.



That is not unusual. The Captain is the Pilot in Command but the other qualified pilot can be on the controls. 



Royzee617 said:


> This is probably the world's most modern airliner with a longish service record. Thus it is the most thoroughly equipped as regards monitoring.



What is there to monitor? There is a Black Box (which is not black by the way) and it only has the flight data on it.



Royzee617 said:


> The plane is essentially intact - dunno why there was no fire - so they can inspect it intact away from the public etc. Compare this to Lockerbie.



That planes allways blow up and catch on fire in an accident is a Hollywood thing. I have personally seen about 10 crashes and only one involved fire and explosion.

This was not even really a crash my friend. It was a crash landing. That is why the aircraft is intact. The aircraft essentially landed short of the runway. It did not impact the ground in an unusual attitude.



Royzee617 said:


> Odd that depsite all the spotters around LHR there is not yet available a single photo let alone vid of this arrival. No CCTV around the runway?



Because most likely it looked completely normal until it actually landed on the ground.

*Are you a conspiracy theorist?*



Royzee617" said:


> On TV last night they were talking a bit about the problem the pilot had and they mentioned sudden double engine failure. No mention of a birdstrike etc.



Again it is too early speculate. The Press does not know what happened, they speculate and then people talk.



Royzee617 said:


> Because of the uncertainty as to the origin of the unusual double engine out I think they must be behind the scenes considering actions such as inspections and maybe selective grounding.



That is for the authorities to decide. Again the investigation is not over. It is too early to speculate.

If and when they find something that is worthy of grounding they will do so. It is not going to happen 2 days after the accident.



Royzee617 said:


> Dunno whether I'd like to be going for a flight in one of these tomorrow. On the one hand it is capable of survivable crash landings but this double engine out is what the naysayers always warned us about in this new type of plane.



I would fly on a 777 any day. Allready have and would do it again.

Do you know it was a double engine failure? It could have been but do you know it was one. Again the TV Press does not know what is going on. They speculate and pretend to be experts and in the end they just get people all excited.

If it was a double engine failure my bet would be it had nothing to do with the engines themselves (it would happen more often if it were the engines) but I would bet it was the fuel that was used.


----------



## Torch (Jan 19, 2008)

Some info and theory from flightinternational.com........Preliminary investigations into yesterday’s crash of a British Airways Boeing 777-200ER at London Heathrow have discovered that, on the final approach, the engines did not respond to demands for increased thrust.

An initial statement from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch says that the aircraft, arriving from Beijing, was 2nm from touchdown at a height of 600ft, with the autopilot and auto-throttle engaged, when the auto-throttle demanded higher thrust from the two Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines.

But the AAIB says the powerplants “did not respond” to the auto-throttle request, adding: “Following further demands for increased thrust from the auto-throttle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond.”

As a result the 777’s airspeed reduced and the aircraft lost height, touching down 1,000ft (300m) short of runway 27L, to which it had been conducting an instrument landing system approach.

“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,” says the AAIB.

Information on the final stages of the flight has been downloaded from both the cockpit-voice recorder and the flight-data recorder. The AAIB’s investigation is being assisted by the US National Transportation Safety Board, Boeing, the US FAA and engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce. It expects to release an interim report on the accident within a month


----------



## Torch (Jan 19, 2008)

Pilots who know British Airways and the Boeing 777 tell Flight International, flightglobal.com's print edition that they believe that whatever happened to reduce the engine power occurred in the last three minutes, possibly even the last two minutes, of the flight. 

Given the task of diagnosing the cause in order to maintain power and simultaneously keeping the aircraft clear of stalling speed as power reduced, the crew did well to select accurately the best touchdown point they could achieve and put the aircraft down, still under control, with wings level and a rate of descent that prevented serious damage. 

Heathrow tower controllers believed the aircraft's nose-high attitude on approach indicated it was about to go around, but shortly after one of the controllers voiced that opinion, the crew declared an emergency.

Among many theories as to the reason for a simultaneous failure of both engines after a long, uneventful flight, fuel contamination appears to come out top in the probabilities list. The theory pilots propose is that although fuel was plentiful, a heavier-than-fuel contaminant, such as water, represented a minute proportion of the fuel in the tanks on the approach, so problems did not arise. 

During the flight, the fuel was cold-soaked and any contaminant could have frozen to crystalline or solid form. Then, in the bumpy approach at lower levels, as the fuel warmed, the melting contaminant began to circulate in the relatively small amount of fuel remaining, forming a slush that could impede the fuel flow to the engines. This is only a pilot theory and there is no positive evidence for it from any official source.

Pilots do not rule out the double-engine birdstrike theory, but the photographs do not appear to show bird remains on fanblades, engine intakes, wing leading edges or nose.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 20, 2008)

One year on and investigators still have no answers to Boeing 777 incident


By Murdo MacLeod
ACCIDENT investigators are still probing a previous incident involving a Boeing 777 at Heathrow, which took place almost a year before Thursday's crash-landing.
A team from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is probing a fire in the electrical system of a United Airlines Boeing 777 which stopped the plane taking off last February.

The wreckage of flight BA038 is expected to be removed from the southern runway at Heathrow Airport this morning.

The British Airways Boeing 777 crash-landed after its engines failed on Thursday afternoon – with all 136 passengers and 16 crew escaping from the flight from Beijing.

Senior first officer John Coward, under the command of Captain Peter Burkill, averted disaster by landing the craft just within Heathrow's boundary fence following the malfunction.

In last year's incident, the flight-deck instrument displays flickered, and the crew heard an "abnormal noise" and smelled electrical burning. Smoke was seen to be coming out of the aircraft.

When investigators checked the plane, they found evidence of heat damage and fire in the electrical system of the aircraft.

In an interim report published in April, the investigators said that they needed to continue their probe in order to study how the fire spread. Their probe is ongoing.

Iain Findlay, an aviation consultant, said: "This could be significant, although it's very early to say one way or the other. The fact is that the Boeing 777 has a very good safety record."

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said that airlines would not ground all their 777s unless it became clear that the fault which caused the crash-landing on Thursday might be present in other planes.

An Air France source said that their experts were studying the information coming from the Heathrow probe, but that it was too early to say whether their 777s would be grounded. Air France operates more than 40 of the aircraft.

Crash investigators are due to move the 209ft, 142,900kg plane today and continue their research into the incident from the eastern BA hangars at Heathrow Airport.

The AAIB's preliminary report into Thursday's incident – which left 18 of the 136 passengers needing treatment, including one with a broken leg – is due out in 30 days.

The body said its investigation was now focused 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".

The decision to move the plane followed a day of normal services at Heathrow, with the British Airports Authority reporting a "modest" 38 cancellations.

The airport was thrown into chaos after
the crash-landing, with 221 flights immediately cancelled. A BAA spokeswoman said: "There have been a modest number of cancellations but operations have returned to normal.

"There are no temporary marquees up; all passengers can resume normal procedures for checking in. British Airways had 21 cancellations in place this morning, including arrivals and departures, but the total at the airport increased to 38 cancellations in all. These were mostly short-haul flights cancelled due to the knock-on effect of the incident."

British Airways said it had fully restored its long-haul schedule and had 95% of its short-haul flights running as normal.

The AAIB produced their initial report shortly after Burkill made a brief statement, praising his colleagues and revealing Coward, with whom he had shared a curry the night after the crash, had been the handling pilot as the plane descended.

The full article contains 597 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Last Updated: 19 January 2008 8:12 PM


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 20, 2008)

No I am not a conspiracy theorist.... I just like to air my thoughts.

Yes, you are right speculation is not on when no facts have been issued. But I find that for such an exceptional occurence on our own doorstep so to speak it interesting to do so. Nice to see what others think.

Torch's entries look intriguing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2008)

Torch said:


> During the flight, the fuel was cold-soaked and any contaminant could have frozen to crystalline or solid form. Then, in the bumpy approach at lower levels, as the fuel warmed, the melting contaminant began to circulate in the relatively small amount of fuel remaining, forming a slush that could impede the fuel flow to the engines. This is only a pilot theory and there is no positive evidence for it from any official source..


Rubbish...

The so called melting contaminant would of had to pass through a series of filters. There also this stuff that is used in most turbine fuels.

Hi-Flash Product Information


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 21, 2008)

Yeah not likely.

There have been similarly catastrophic situations that seems just as unlikely to occur. Like the 767 that ran out of fuel and landed at a drag strip in Alberta (if I recall correctly). Fuel quantity indication system was inop. Pilot measured fuel using dipsticks. Calculated fuel in lbs vice kgs on dipsticks. Ran both engines dry inflight. Dead sticked to an old Canadian Airforce strip that was being used as a dragstrip. Made a perfect landing. Except forgot to lower the gear. Oops.

And a 777 incident where all primary and backup displays were blanked due to a software failure. Had to revert to steam guages. And it was only at the insistence of Boeing flight test pilots that the analog guages were retained, since the FAA did not require them as the PFDs/MFDs met the regulatory safety requirements alone.

So these types of stories do exist. I'm not a mechanical systems engineer, but I would love to see the cross-feed valves and their failure modes. Sure seems strange that this failure mode would have been overlooked.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 22, 2008)

The 767 Matt is talking about was calle the "Gimli Glider" he did drop the gear but the nose wheel collapsed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2008)

I was on a 767 in Stuttgart that did that. On take off the nose wheel collapsed. I have pics of it unfortunatly this was before Digital so I have to dig them out of a box and scan them.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 23, 2008)

I see the media have cracked open that old EMI chestnut with tales of WiFi interference.... durh.

My money's still on dirty fuel. Doesn't matter how good the plane is if the fuel's no good.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2008)

I was under the impression that it was a computer failure; the ILS demanded throttle twice without reply and then the pilot demanded with reply. This doesn't indicate to me that the engines have failed through fuel contamination or lack of fuel. The 777 has a record of computer glitches, none of them have been reported before now because all those involved have made it down safely.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 23, 2008)

The last I read today was that the electronic problem that caused the engine cut was due to an active cell phone on the aircraft, whose EM emissions have tilted the computers.

Seems BS to me...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2008)

Parmigiano said:


> The last I read today was that the electronic problem that caused the engine cut was due to an active cell phone on the aircraft, whose EM emissions have tilted the computers.
> 
> Seems BS to me...




Yep - definetly BS.

No way cell phone EMs are going to cause an airliner's computers to fail.


----------



## plastic (Jan 23, 2008)

Just a thought gentlemen. Regarding the question of grounding triple 7's because of one accident and the, seemingly accepted lack of need to do so.
Anyone remember Concord??
One accident and that was the end of it, overreaction?
An impeccable record for many years, it was the worlds only supersonic mass transport airliner, one accident and the whole fleet is dead, why?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2008)

plastic said:


> Just a thought gentlemen. Regarding the question of grounding triple 7's because of one accident and the, seemingly accepted lack of need to do so.
> Anyone remember Concord??
> One accident and that was the end of it, overreaction?
> An impeccable record for many years, it was the worlds only supersonic mass transport airliner, one accident and the whole fleet is dead, why?



The Concord fleet was initially grounded pending investigation and then was cleared to fly once again.

I think what ultimately grounded the Concord was it's age, the novelty was gone and it was a financial white elephant to operate, let alone the flak it got from environmentalists. Sad but true...


----------



## bigZ (Jan 23, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Concord fleet was initially grounded pending investigation and then was cleared to fly once again.
> 
> I think what ultimately grounded the Concord was it's age, the novelty was gone and it was a financial white elephant to operate, let alone the flak it got from environmentalists. Sad but true...



Some good points but in the main I think it was because the French couldn't make it profitable to operate and were looking for an easy way out.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2008)

The Concorde was abandoned because the French couldn't make it profitable and they couldn't afford to lose face. The French government put pressure on the British to abandon the Concorde alongside them, but British Airways _were_ making money off the Concorde through business deals. The Concorde was an excellent selling point for business contracts.

For example:

If one company sells 100 flights for £80,000 and then British Airways says 100 flights for £80,000 and every fourth flight is on the Concorde - then the contract goes to BA. 

That's how it worked but France couldn't catch on to that and put pressure on the [wishy-washy] British government to force BA to abandon it. Much respect for Richard Branson who announced he'd buy the 40 year old aircraft for twice what BA paid for it, which was £1 when BA was privatised. 

Ridding the world of Concorde was a step back in technology; it proved the viability of a supersonic airliner that would be even easier to achieve today.


----------



## Royzee617 (Jan 24, 2008)

Boeing 777s had six other engine failures

By David Millward, Transport Editor
Last Updated: 2:52am GMT 24/01/2008

The type of aircraft that crash-landed at Heathrow last week has had six other engine failures logged by American investigators, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
# John Lanchester: The end of our golden age of flying

Details of the incidents involving Boeing 777s emerged as officials from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch try to uncover the reasons behind last week's accident involving British Airways flight 038 from Beijing.

The BA Boeing 777 which crashed landed at Heathrow
Computer failure, bird strike and fuel starvation have all been explored as possible causes for the crash landing

The earlier failures were logged by the US National Transportation Safety Board, which has an investigator working with the AAIB. It has been established that the two engines on the BA jet failed to produce the thrust needed as the plane, with 136 passengers on board, came in to land.

At first it was thought that the aircraft suffered a catastrophic double engine failure but it has since emerged that one engine was still turning even after the plane hit the ground.

This makes the findings of the previous incidents of crucial importance as they all refer to single engine problems.

These are the previous incidents:
advertisement

• Aug 2 2005: The greatest interest is likely to be in an incident when a Malaysian-registered 777 suffered a loss of thrust while climbing half an hour after take off from Perth before returning and landing safety.

Australian investigators identified computer failings which led to the pilots being given inaccurate speed readings and the US Federal Aviation Administration in Washington ordered a computer upgrade, warning that faulty data could cause difficulties with the flight controls, autopilot, pilot displays, brakes and autothrottles.

The preliminary AAIB report into last Thursday's crash-landing pinpointed problems with the autothrottle as one of the factors which triggered the emergency.

• July 1, 1998: An Air France plane en route to Paris from Sao Paolo suffered an "uncommanded engine shutdown". Investigators identified oil pump contamination as the cause.

• Jan 30, 2001: A United Arab Emirates 777 suffered an engine failure as a result of a defective fan blade. Investigators identified fatigue cracking as the cause.

• June 6, 2001: A Thai Airways 777 suffered a ruptured fuel tube en route from Taipei to Bangkok.

• June 23, 2005: A Japan airlines 777 stalled after taking off from Tokyo. An inspection revealed a hole in the turbine casing.

• Sept 18, 2006: The right engine of another Malaysian 777 shut down 40 miles north-west of Brisbane but was restarted.

Theories to explain Flight 038's landing 1,000ft short of the Heathrow runway, included computer failure, bird strike and contaminated fuel or fuel starvation.

But last night bird strike and fuel starvation appeared to have been ruled out as no feathers were found nearby and had there been fuel problems the engine would have spluttered.

A Boeing spokesman said: "The 777 has been in service for 12 years and has flown around 3.6 million flight hours during which there have been no fatalities. It would be inappropriate to comment at this stage."


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 24, 2008)

UK AIS information (source witheld)

Autothrottle appears to have been working fine with proper commands. Autothrottle commanded an increase in thrust, two seconds later left engine thrust reduced to between idle and commanded thrust. 8 seconds later right engine thrust reduced to between idle and commanded thrust. 2 miles out 600ft initial loss of thrust occurred. Fuel flow sensors indicate fuel was being supplied to both engines, but not at Autothrottle commanded rate of flow. Initial fuel samples indicate fuel clear with no apparent contaminants. Fuel sent for further analysis.

Impact was 25ft/sec.

Hmmmm...


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2008)

There was a three engine failure on an L1011 (it only has three) but the plane was recovered successfully.

May 4, 1983. Miami-Nassau-Miami 
Eastern Airlines, N334EA. L-1011-1 (serial no 1141). 
Flight 855 departed Miami for a 37 minutes trip to Nassau. When they descended through 15000 ft the low oil pressure light for the #2 engine illuminated. During the short flight all engines had indicated normal pressure and quantity but now the #2 engine showed low level (~8 qts) and pressure (~15-25 psi) while engines #1 and #3 still indicated normal. The #2 engine was shut down, the APU started, and with poor weather at Nassau the Captain decided to return to Miami. The flight was now down at 12000 ft and turned back towards Miami while climbing up to FL200. 
When climbing through 15000 ft they got a low oil pressure light for the #3 engine. The Captain retarded the #3 throttle slightly and reduced the rate of climb. Then the #1 engine low oil pressure light illuminated. The gauges at the Flight Engineer´s panel showed that the oil pressure on both operating engines were low and falling and that all quantity gauges indicated zero. Since the risk of this happening is very slim the crew considered indication problems. They levelled off at 16000 ft at 300 kt and told ATC about their problems. ATC cleared them direct to Miami and speed was reduced to 230 kt. 

Then, with no warning, the #3 engine failed. They were now flying on one engine. They radioed Miami and was cleared for a straight-in approach for runway 27L, still with 70 miles to go. They started a descend and also began dumping fuel. The weather at Miami was good and the crew now realized that the gauges were functioning properly. At 12000 ft also #1 engine failed. They were now 55 miles from Miami with no engines at all running. The rate of descend increased to 1600 ft/min with a speed of 225 kt and the crew now tried to restart engine #2 through windmilling. It did not start. 

The cabin was prepared for ditching. The Captain would set it down on the water with the landing gear retracted, normal landing flaps and with the nose pitched up at 12 degrees. That would probably torn off the wing engines, flaps and horizontal stabiliser. The aircraft would still be expected to stay afloat for 20-25 minutes. 

There was little hope of any successful restart of the wing engines but the crew tried it anyway, with no success. Now an airstarter assisted restart of engine #2 was carried out and at 4000 ft, still with 22 miles to Miami, it started. At 3000 ft they headed straight for runway 27L. On landing both engines #1 and #3 smoked badly bacause the fuel switches were still on from the previous start attempts and fuel was still beeing pumped. Fire bottles were discharged on both those engines. 

The Captain asked for a tug to tow the aircraft away from the runway but was informed that there would be a delay for that. Then he tried to use the #2 engine only to find that there was no power available. The #2 engine failed on the runway. 

The reason for all three engines losing all their oil was a magnetic chip detector replacement, on all engines, the previous night. The installed chip detectors were all missing their o-rings and when the engines were started they began to leak oil. A ten-second engine motoring was carried out at night to check for leaks but it was established later that a minimum of 30 seconds was required to get a leak with o-rings missing. 

And about the start attempts on engine #2: The crew entered the chart incorrectly and tried a windmill start when an airstarter assisted one would be required. Later on, when they discovered that they needed airstarter assist the engine started. If they would have entered the chart correctly the first time - would the #2 engine have lasted all the way to Miami? 

Read the full story in Stanley Stewart´s book "Emergency - Crisis on the Flight Deck".


----------



## fly boy (Jan 25, 2008)

wait what happend to a 777?


----------



## fly boy (Jan 25, 2008)

and 777s don't have 4 engines that a 747


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2008)

Do you watch the news?

And no it was a 777 that crash landed and not a 747 unless you are talking dav's post and that is a 3 engined L1011 which still is not a 747...


----------



## Torch (Jan 31, 2008)

Latest update:The British Airways Boeing 777-200ER which crash landed at London Heathrow on 17 January had adequate fuel on board and that both engines continued to generate thrust, albeit much-reduced, say investigators.

Preliminary findings from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch had indicated that the twinjet's Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines had failed to respond to an auto-throttle command for increased thrust during the final stage of the approach.

In an update issued last week, however, the AAIB says both engines did initially respond to the auto-throttle command, but that the starboard engine's thrust reduced after about 3s and the port engine's thrust also reduced to a similar level 8s later.

"The engines did not shut down and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight-idle, but less than the commanded thrust," it adds.

Data from the flight recorders, says the AAIB, shows that an "adequate" fuel quantity was on board the twin-jet and that both the auto-throttle and engine-control commands were performing as expected, both before and after the thrust reduction.

"All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and continued lack of response of the engines to throttle-lever inputs are being examined," it adds.

It states that the analysis includes examination of the fuel-flow path between the 777's fuel tanks and the engine fuel nozzles.

All 136 passengers and 16 crew members on board the aircraft (G-YMMM) escaped with only a handful of minor injuries after the aircraft, operating flight BA038 from


----------



## fly boy (Jan 31, 2008)

deralder why did you put my thing about the jet bomber?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 31, 2008)

Say what?? By the way, suicidal cats should not play with guns. For that you need a real kitty.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2008)

fly boy said:


> deralder why did you put my thing about the jet bomber?


Just pull the trigger!


----------



## mkloby (Feb 3, 2008)




----------



## fly boy (Feb 4, 2008)

flyboy i have no trigger to pull


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2008)

fly boy said:


> flyboy i have no trigger to pull


----------



## Njaco (Feb 4, 2008)

phew! He finally changed it! I like Matt's though.


----------

