Pilot gave no warning before Boeing 777 crash, reports say

[Royzee617]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

or is it just that the media are idiots?

BINGO!!!!

 

[Royzee617]

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]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdhuGbvPJzo
interesting comments

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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

 

[pbfoot]

THe guys from Rolls will be all over that

 

[Royzee617]

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]

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]

Royzee you are really blowing this out of proportion.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.