Pilot gave no warning before Boeing 777 crash, reports say
- Thread starter Royzee617
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
- Thread starter
- #23
Royzee617
Tech Sergeant
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.
My money's still on dirty fuel. Doesn't matter how good the plane is if the fuel's no good.
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
Senior Airman
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...
Seems BS to me...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - definetly BS.
No way cell phone EMs are going to cause an airliner's computers to fail.
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?
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #31
Royzee617
Tech Sergeant
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."
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
Glock Perfection
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...
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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".
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".
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...
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...
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
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
Matt308
Glock Perfection
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Just pull the trigger!
