Wow. Was somebody just randomly filming the landing or something? Would they have been trying to stretch their glide to make sure they cleared the houses/highway? (That's quite a high angle of attack it seems like)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
BA 777 landing accident at LHR
Collapse
X
-
What a terrible predicament.
One thing does stand out to me though......the APU door is open. This would normally only be the case if an low-vis autoland was being conducted (unlikely in the conditions), after an engine failure or an IDG failure. This is not in itself completely out of place as in the event of a dual engine failure an APU start is attempted, although not until after trying to relight the engines via FLT on the ignition etc etc.
Has there been any suggestion that one engine had already been shutdown earlier in the flight? Memories of Kegworth which unfortunately did not have a large grass area.
Comment
-
BA38 Ex Beijing down at Heathrow (AD.com)
Page 6 of 6
Unread Today, 04:51 PM #201
Half Bottle
Forum Attention Whore
Half Bottle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,034
Default
From cnn.com....
Quote:
Jerome Ensinck, a passenger aboard the flight, said there had been no indication that the plane was making an emergency landing.
"There was no indication that we were going to have a bad landing," he said. "When we hit the ground it was extremely rough, but I've had rough landings before and I thought 'This is the roughest I've had.'
"I feel lucky at the moment, but I think now I realize I've had a close call. If we had hit the runway, it would have been worse."
Note to Mr. Ensinck: hitting the runway is normally the preferred method for landing.
Half Bottle is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
Half Bottle
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Half Bottle
Find More Posts by Half Bottle
Add Half Bottle to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 04:53 PM #202
reubee
Senior Member
reubee's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: AKL
Posts: 576
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToRX
No it's not:
I stand corrected, thanks
reubee is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
reubee
View Public Profile
Send a private message to reubee
Find More Posts by reubee
Add reubee to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 04:57 PM #203
FreedomOfSpeech
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 15
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Wouldn't any holds be irrelevant once a fuel emergency is declared? I always thought ATC would give maximum priority to an aircraft running out of fuel. Also, the major London airports aside, there are tons of other runways long enough for a 777 in that area.
Yes but the point is that no one wants to declare a fuel emergency because that is serious shit and there is an investigation afterwards as to how the plane got in to that situation.
Normally running low on fuel happens transatlantic or other long haul due to the Jetstream not running how you expect etc, etc or may be losing an engine on the way. So typically a plane would divert much earlier on a long haul flight rather than divert to Gatwick. But flying say Manchester or Edinburgh to Heathrow presumably a Gatwick diversion due to a fuel screw up and then exceptionally long predicted hold as you near Heathrow approach is entirely likely.
Planes land at Shannon etc regulalry because they think they might not have enough fuel for Heathrow. No near accident miss investigation is required as the airline merely incurs extra cost but the pilot is behaving prudently and responsibly. The only enquiry may be an internal one by the airline because the flight is made seriously late, an outbound departure is lost (and may be also the return from that departure) and extra landing fees are paid. That is the problem of the airline and its passengers commercially and in reputation terms but it is not the CAA or the AAIB's problem.
Of course some pilots fear the crap of the internal enquiry more and/or are badly trained and lacking in intelligence and common sense and hence we end up with an Aeromexico type situation.
FreedomOfSpeech is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
FreedomOfSpeech
View Public Profile
Send a private message to FreedomOfSpeech
Send email to FreedomOfSpeech
Find More Posts by FreedomOfSpeech
Add FreedomOfSpeech to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 04:59 PM #204
ils26
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by V2500
Btw, bet that hole in the fuselage came from when that loose boogie comming off and tumbling away.
I'm beginning to believe that too (you can see the gear's position in relation to the hole in the photo http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1318204/M/ ).
The people sitting in the rows above that hole are really lucky. The gear could just as well had hit - and entered - their windows, injuring or killing them.
ils26 is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
ils26
View Public Profile
Send a private message to ils26
Send email to ils26
Find More Posts by ils26
Add ils26 to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:00 PM #205
Dmmoore
Super Moderator
Dmmoore's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: N01.21.080' E103.58.306' or N34.36.53 W112.27.44
Posts: 6,421
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by procede
Could the FMC/pilots have selected empty fuel tanks as they where approaching the airfield? for example they could have drained the inner tanks, switched to the outer and gone back to direct feed during approach...
Anything is possible but that would require manual control of the fuel system. The FSC will not allow that scenario.
Dmmoore is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
Dmmoore
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Dmmoore
Find More Posts by Dmmoore
Add Dmmoore to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:02 PM #206
obmot
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 145
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by reubee
I stand corrected, thanks
If I had to guess, the wheels laying there on the lawn is part of the right rear main bogie because I can see the front wheels and what appears to be a set of 3 wheels on the left (looking at the pic above looking at the front of the aircraft).
obmot is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
obmot
View Public Profile
Send a private message to obmot
Find More Posts by obmot
Add obmot to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:02 PM #207
Dmmoore
Super Moderator
Dmmoore's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: N01.21.080' E103.58.306' or N34.36.53 W112.27.44
Posts: 6,421
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mawheatley
I'm sorry - what is the significance of the APU intake being open?
It indicates the APU was running, or was in the start-up cycle.
Dmmoore is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
Dmmoore
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Dmmoore
Find More Posts by Dmmoore
Add Dmmoore to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:06 PM #208
Half Bottle
Forum Attention Whore
Half Bottle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,034
Default
Ok, just to throw something out there that is almost certainly unrelated, but may be fun to chew on while we await facts. Does anyone know what the outcome was of the investigation into the Malaysian 777 that had, for lack of a better term, an avionics 'gremlin' a few years back?
Half Bottle is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
Half Bottle
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Half Bottle
Find More Posts by Half Bottle
Add Half Bottle to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:12 PM #209
andytoop
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 640
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomOfSpeech
I may not have a pilot's licence but as a frequent air passenger in to all five commercial London airports I do know enough about holding times and approach patterns to know you are talking unmitigated claptrap here.
I regularly talk unmitigated claptrap - but I think you missed the point.
I wasn't sugesting that the holding patern for Gatwick is the same as the one for Heathrow. I was talking about a plane already in the Heathrow pattern with Heathrow as its destination and Gatwick as its alternate. (Actually I was particalry thinking of the biggin stack
Also a stright divert, not for a fuel emergency. If the plane diverted to Gatwick it would still have to hold to get a slot on the runway. If its going to declare a fuel emergency to get into Gatwick, it may as well do so to get into Heathrow. If they declare an emergency they wont be in the hold for twenty minutes they will jump to the front of the queue.
andytoop is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
andytoop
View Public Profile
Send a private message to andytoop
Find More Posts by andytoop
Add andytoop to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:20 PM #210
aardvark2zz
Senior Member
aardvark2zz's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Not Here
Posts: 1,779
Default
OK I want you to stop and think about your statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntheShade
OK I want you to stop and think about your statement.
If I am flying an airplane and drop down to battery power yet still have the battery powered backup flight instruments the last thing I want to do is attempt a APU start and totally drain the battery because "You know you can't rule out two generator or gcu problems which would let the apu come on line since the fault(s) would be south of the line contactors."
I'm going to stick with what I have and not risk losing it all. .....
You`re forgetting the APU battery !
.
aardvark2zz is online now Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote
aardvark2zz
View Public Profile
Send a private message to aardvark2zz
Find More Posts by aardvark2zz
Add aardvark2zz to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:22 PM #211
FreedomOfSpeech
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 15
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by andytoop
If the plane diverted to Gatwick it would still have to hold to get a slot on the runway. If its going to declare a fuel emergency to get into Gatwick, it may as well do so to get into Heathrow. If they declare an emergency they wont be in the hold for twenty minutes they will jump to the front of the queue.
And my point was that a pilot getting low on fuel hearing there was a 15 or 20 minute hold pattern at Heathrow before entering the holding pattern would see if he could divert to Stansted, Luton or Gatwick if he was told there was currently near no holding time to land there and near immediate landing on approach.
He then lands without declaring a fuel emergency and avoids a problem with the air regulation authorities but undoubtedly possibly (depending on who or what is at fault in causing the low fuel situation) gets in to one with the commercial management of his airline (especially if it is Ryanair). Therein lies the pilot dilemma and the reasons some pilots take chances instead of playing safe.
Also I would presume that when planes are stacked at Heathrow and there is a serious ncident on the landing runway in use, such as a plane with locked brakes on the runway, that means Heathrow has to go to single alternating land/depart runway operation that large numbers of planes in the stack then divert to airports including Gatwick so they can safely land on their remaining available fuel. This is because in those circumstances the stacking time is probably going to more than double for Heathrow.
FreedomOfSpeech is online now Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
FreedomOfSpeech
View Public Profile
Send a private message to FreedomOfSpeech
Send email to FreedomOfSpeech
Find More Posts by FreedomOfSpeech
Add FreedomOfSpeech to Your Buddy List
Unread Today, 05:30 PM #212
aardvark2zz
Senior Member
aardvark2zz's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Not Here
Posts: 1,779
Default
Quote:
PPRuNe Message We are sorry but The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork is temporarily closed while we perform some essential maintenance on the website. Due to the extremely high number of visitors, the servers are unable to cope with the demands. We are doing everything we can to rectify this situation. Normal service will resume shortly and we thank you for your patience.
As I posted this, even AD.com hung !!
.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pbatesonThat is terrible.
2nd crash in 2008 with no fatalites?
May be 1st B777 W/O?
The wings were very bad damage over the torn landing gears.Inactive from May 1 2009.
Comment
Comment