"I didn't speak to the pilot, but I saw him, and he looked very pale, but there was no communication in the cabin."
Originally posted by AquaShrimp:rofl
I bet. You know how many perks he just lost?
Originally posted by Wolfala
22016KT 9999 BKN014 BKN020 11/09 Q0996 TEMPO 24020G32KT 6000 SHRA BKN015CB
Lets see...
Winds 220 / 16 knots. Ceiling broken 1400 feet, broken 2000 feet. Temp 11, dewpoint 9, Altimeter 29.96. Temporary observation, winds 240 at 20 Gusting 32 knots, Showers and Rain, broken 1500 Cumulonimbus.
Translation, thunderstorm. My guess is he caught the tail edge of a micro burst and slammed in short of the runway.
Originally posted by john9001:lol
computer voice:: "pull up.......pull up"
Originally posted by Paxil
I think his perkies are safe... looks like he managed to just get on the end of the pavement.
Originally posted by Chairboy
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44362000/gif/_44362967_heathrow_wide_416.gif)
Originally posted by Bingolong
Double engine faluire lost all electronics 30 seconds before landing :O He does deserve a medal.
Originally posted by BingolongThat's what is being reported, via an airport worker, 2nd hand from a pilot. The black box should tell the real story. I'll wait for that info before I blame the aircraft.
Double engine faluire lost all electronics 30 seconds before landing :O He does deserve a medal.
Originally posted by moot
The conclusion doesn't seem to account for the pilot reportedly saying all the electronics had failed. Geese in the engines can't cause that, can they?
Originally posted by BiGBMAW btw wheres the Euro brothers??? If its not Boeing I aint Going bashers??>??.heheh [/B]
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch, in its preliminary report on Thursday's near-disaster, said "the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond."
The report adds that despite further demands for increased thrust from the autothrottle - and the flight crew moving the throttle levers - the engines did not respond.
Originally posted by Furball
Wonder what could stop both engines responding like that?
Originally posted by Airscrew
Ran out of gas?
Originally posted by Overlag
had plenty of gas left.
i wonder if bird strike caused this?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
FWIW, Boeing does not make the engines. We hang them and hook them up. The customers choose which engines they want.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
FWIW, Boeing does not make the engines. We hang them and hook them up. The customers choose which engines they want.
Originally posted by Fishu
that's one stupid URL, it keeps putting space between latest_news/ and accident..
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/
accident__heathrow_17_january _2008___initial_report.cfm
Accident to Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM at London Heathrow Airport on 17 January 2008 - Initial Report
Initial Report AAIB Ref: EW/C2008/01/01
Accident
Aircraft Type and Registration: Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM
No & Type of Engines: 2 Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 895-17 turbofan engines
Year of Manufacture: 2001
Date & Time: 17 January 2008 at 1243 hrs
Location: Undershoot RWY 27L, London Heathrow Airport
Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (passenger)
Persons on Board: Crew - 16
Passengers - 136
Injuries: Crew - 4 (minor)
Passengers - 1 (serious)
Passengers - 8 (minor)
Nature of Damage: Substantial
Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation
Following an uneventful flight from Beijing, China, the aircraft was established on an ILS approach to Runway 27L at London Heathrow. Initially the approach progressed normally, with the Autopilot and Autothrottle engaged, until the aircraft was at a height of approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down. The aircraft then descended rapidly and struck the ground, some 1,000 ft short of the paved runway surface, just inside the airfield boundary fence. The aircraft stopped on the very beginning of the paved surface of Runway 27L. During the short ground roll the right main landing gear separated from the wing and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing root. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire. An emergency evacuation via the slides was supervised by the cabin crew and all occupants left the aircraft, some receiving minor injuries.
The AAIB was notified of the accident within a few minutes and a team of Inspectors including engineers, pilots and a flight recorder specialist deployed to Heathrow. In accordance with the established international arrangements the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the USA, representing the State of Design and Manufacture of the aircraft, was informed of the event. The NTSB appointed an Accredited Representative to lead a team from the USA made up of investigators from the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing. A Boeing investigator already in the UK joined the investigation on the evening of the event, the remainder of the team arrived in the UK on Friday 18th January. Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer is also supporting the investigation, an investigator having joined the AAIB team.
Activity at the accident scene was coordinated with the Airport Fire and Rescue Service, the Police, the British Airports Authority and British Airways to ensure the recovery of all relevant evidence, to facilitate the removal of the aircraft and the reinstatement of airport operations.
The flight crew were interviewed on the evening of the event by an AAIB Operations Inspector and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Quick Access Recorder (QAR) were removed for replay. The CVR and FDR have been successfully downloaded at the AAIB laboratories at Farnborough and both records cover the critical final stages of the flight. The QAR was downloaded with the assistance of British Airways and the equipment manufacturer. All of the downloaded information is now the subject of detailed analysis.
Examination of the aircraft systems and engines is ongoing.
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.
Originally posted by Furball
Wonder what could stop both engines responding like that?
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
the first D-FbW flight was in the early seventies.
Its a fairly mature technology.
Originally posted by Hornet33
The reason I say this is because acourding to the pilot he tried to move the thottle controls while they still had the auto thottle engaged.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Also, that's absolutely incorrect, RPM. The Paris Air Show crash was because the pilot commanded full idle instead of approach idle, and it took too long to spool up when he commanded go around thrust. It was not a failure of FbW, it was legit pilot error.
Originally posted by Creamo08
Actually, you have as much to do with Boeing jets as a janitor does mopping break rooms at Boeing. You don't hang engines, we do. You never have even put a qt. of oil in a 777. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could open the engine cowling.
STFU as you havn't a clue.
Originally posted by Yeager
Dang rip, creamo has it hard for you, real hard :aok
What you do to the guy anyway? slaughter his family or something :confused:
Originally posted by GolferHe'd never make it as part of the family. He'd last about 5 minutes before he got his grease monkey *** fired. ;)
As if the pilots could either. It's good to see a family atmosphere within the company. :rolleyes:
Well since that looks like a good way to get banned again. Welcome back Creamo even if for a few minutes.
Originally posted by Creamo08
Actually, you have as much to do with Boeing jets as a janitor does mopping break rooms at Boeing. You don't hang engines, we do. You never have even put a qt. of oil in a 777. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could open the engine cowling.
STFU as you havn't a clue.
Accident to a Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM, on 17 January 2008 - Initial Report Update
Accident to a Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM, on 17 January 2008 at 1243 hrs
Initial Report Update 23 January 2008
Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) 1st Preliminary Report on Friday 18 January 2008 at 1700 hrs, work has continued on all fronts to identify why neither engine responded to throttle lever inputs during the final approach. The 150 tonne aircraft was moved from the threshold of Runway 27L to an airport apron on Sunday evening, allowing the airport to return to normal operations.
The AAIB, sensitive to the needs of the industry including Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Airways and other Boeing 777 operators and crews, is issuing this update to provide such further factual information as is now available.
As previously reported, whilst the aircraft was stabilised on an ILS approach with the autopilot engaged, the autothrust system commanded an increase in thrust from both engines. The engines both initially responded but after about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced. Some eight seconds later the thrust reduced on the left engine to a similar level. 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.
Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust.
All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and continued lack of response of the engines to throttle lever inputs are being examined, in close cooperation with Boeing, Rolls Royce and British Airways. This work includes a detailed analysis and examination of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine fuel nozzles.
Further factual information will be released as and when available.
Jan 25, 2008
By Guy Norris/Aviation Daily
U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch inspectors are examining the fuel system of the British Airways Boeing 777-200ER which crash-landed at London Heathrow Airport last week after updating its preliminary findings to say that both engines did briefly produce some thrust during the approach.
The AAIB, which initially indicated that the 777's Rolls-Royce Trent 895 engines failed to respond to an auto-throttle command, now says both engines spooled up when commanded but that the thrust levels soon reduced. The number two (right) engine reduced after about three seconds, while the number one engine power reduced after about eight seconds. The findings appear to be consistent with post-crash photographs that indicate considerably more fan damage to the number one engine than the number two engine, which appears relatively intact. The fan damage indicates the number one engine was running at some power on impact.
Investigators say that "all possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and continued lack of response to throttle-lever inputs are being examined," and adds that flight data recorder information indicates normal performance from both engine control commands and the auto-throttle.
According to the British Airways 777 technical manual the autothrottle is controlled by the thrust management function, which operates the autothrottle in response to flight crew mode control panel inputs or to automatic flight management computer (FMC) commands. Thrust management calculates reference thrust limits and thrust settings, or follows FMC thrust settings as well as commands the thrust levers themselves. The system is also designed to sense and transmit autothrottle failures and commands thrust equalization through the engine electronic controls. The thrust levers can also, of course, be set manually by the crew.
Sources close to the investigation also tell The DAILY that British Airways engineers have been collecting fuel samples from every flight emanating from China. The sample collection, plus comments from the AAIB indicating the aircraft had "adequate" fuel remaining on board at the time of the crash, is believed to point toward suspicions of a heavier-than-fuel contaminant being present. Theories propounded by crew include the possible presence of water in the tanks that, having become frozen during the intense cold-soak period of the flight, partially melted and formed a slush that could have partially blocked the fuel lines.
Sources also tell The DAILY that upper air temperatures over Russia and northern Europe were extremely cold on the day of the accident. Information from other crews coming from Asia on Jan. 17 encountered extremely low temperatures in the -70 to -75 degrees C. range, resulting in fuel temperatures dipping into the -40s. European upper air temperatures also indicate the last 6.5 hours of the inbound China flight would have been flown at an outside air temperature of -60 deg. C. or lower. Although this would have resulted in fuel temperatures on approach in the -35 degrees C range, this would not normally constitute a problem unless, potentially, contaminants were present.
Originally posted by chase4If you read that last portion of the article I pasted, it appears may have not been coincidence.
It's a hell of a coincedence that both engines should fail at the same time (at any time for that matter). They're just lucky that they were on finals or a much bigger incident could have happened, i.e the plane landing smack bang in the middle of the surrounding housing estates. IMO the pilot has intended to land on the grass in the hope that it could "soften" the impact.to the "hero" pilot (ironically name John Coward) [/B]
Sources close to the investigation also tell The DAILY that British Airways engineers have been collecting fuel samples from every flight emanating from China. The sample collection, plus comments from the AAIB indicating the aircraft had "adequate" fuel remaining on board at the time of the crash, is believed to point toward suspicions of a heavier-than-fuel contaminant being present. Theories propounded by crew include the possible presence of water in the tanks that, having become frozen during the intense cold-soak period of the flight, partially melted and formed a slush that could have partially blocked the fuel lines.
Sources also tell The DAILY that upper air temperatures over Russia and northern Europe were extremely cold on the day of the accident. Information from other crews coming from Asia on Jan. 17 encountered extremely low temperatures in the -70 to -75 degrees C. range, resulting in fuel temperatures dipping into the -40s. European upper air temperatures also indicate the last 6.5 hours of the inbound China flight would have been flown at an outside air temperature of -60 deg. C. or lower. Although this would have resulted in fuel temperatures on approach in the -35 degrees C range, this would not normally constitute a problem unless, potentially, contaminants were present.
Originally posted by MaverickFuel tanks are heated to accomodate the freezing temperature of jet fuel but water freezes at a different temp than jet fuel. Looks like they encountered some extreme temperatures. I'm not sure if even a heated system could keep up with those sort of extremes and situation (water, fuel and contaminates) unless its on a thermostat....
Rip, no provision for fuel tank and line heating other than returned fuel?
Originally posted by Airscrew
ok, was trying to be a bit funny, let me say it another way,..
fuel starvation? blocked fuel lines?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Fuel tanks are heated to accomodate the freezing temperature of jet fuel but water freezes at a different temp than jet fuel. Looks like they encountered some extreme temperatures. I'm not sure if even a heated system could keep up with those sort of extremes and situation (water, fuel and contaminates) unless its on a thermostat....
I think what the article is saying that extremely cold jet fuel, water, mixed with contaminates could create a "slush" that would seize fuel lines.