Page 3 of 57 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1139

Thread: BA 777 landing accident at LHR

  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    296

    Default

    [photoid=6152712]
    [photoid=6152505]
    [photoid=6152482]
    [photoid=6152475]
    [photoid=6152458]

  2. #42
    Member hansonator69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Thank God everyone survived. The pilot's skills saved lives. Could this be the first written-off 777?

  3. #43
    Roland V-Drummer Will M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Christchurch , New Zealand
    Posts
    1,685

    Default



    here a vid of the landing. Such a high AoA ! Almost A330 style

  4. #44
    Member Arrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cam
    ^I agree Ollie!

    ad.com had a good thread on it.....Chris, the site down?
    AD.Com forums gone bye-bye forthwith. This notice is up

    "Dear AirDisaster.Com Forum members,

    At about 3pm U.S. Pacific Time today, the web server that hosted the AirDisaster.Com forums suffered a catastrophic failure which rendered both
    hard drives useless and irrecoverable. Unfortunately, one drive in this server contained the live forums database, and the other contained the daily
    database backups.

    With this in mind, I'm sorry to report that, effective immediately, the AirDisaster.Com Discussion Forums are closed permanently. These forums were
    home to hundreds of thousands of posts, and to attempt to start from scratch at this point would be futile, in my opinion.

    For those of you looking for a place to continue discussing aviation safety, we have introduced a new Aviation Safety Discussion Forum at our sister site,
    JetPhotos.Net. While I know this isn't the ideal solution for many of you, I would still invite all of you to visit the JP.Net forums, sign up, and
    participate!

    On a personal note, to me, this is the end of an era. These forums were regarded as the most authoritative aviation safety forums on the internet,
    for a period of almost 10 years. On top of that, they were home to many friendships, some rivalries, and spawned at least one successful marriage.
    That, above all else, will be the legacy of these forums long after they're gone.

    I'd like to thank each and every one of you who helped to make the forums as successful as they were, and would like to thank, especially, the
    administrators, moderators, and industry forum hosts who devoted their free time to make this place the best it could possibly be.

    I guess that's about it. I hope to see many of you over at the JetPhotos.Net forums, and to those of you who will no longer participate, the best to all of you for a bright and prosperous future.

    Last one out, hit the lights!

    Chris Kilroy
    Editor, AirDisaster.Com

  5. #45
    Senior Member Star Alliance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Jacksonville,Florida
    Posts
    1,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrow

    Last one out, hit the lights!

    Chris Kilroy
    Editor, AirDisaster.Com
    Oh my goodness! It feels like the day TWA died all over again (and I didn't even participate in those forums...).
    End of an era, boys. End of an era.

  6. #46
    BCBYH! JordanD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    LOAHVUHL!
    Posts
    5,087

    Default

    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)


  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,186

    Default

    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.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,186

    Default

    ....wow, just learnt something about the 777. After the loss of power to both engines the APU will attempt an autostart! What an amazing aircraft.

  9. #49
    Junior Member Tbun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    92

    Default

    That video in the post a few above... Am I right in thinking it has been cut short because of the investigation?

    If so why would they do that? To what end?
    Everyone made like DB Cooper.

  10. #50
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I'm wondering why the RAT isn't out in the video..with the reports of the engines out and the electrical busses not powered....looks like we can't count on the RAT!

  11. #51
    Member aardvark2zz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    144

    Default 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?

    http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=75655
    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 !!

    .

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,984

    Default

    That 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.

  13. #53
    Member aardvark2zz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Star Alliance
    Oh my goodness! It feels like the day TWA died all over again (and I didn't even participate in those forums...).
    End of an era, boys. End of an era.
    Could happen here too. All those posts, all those pics; all of a sudden POOOUFFFF forever .....

    .

  14. #54
    Senior Member BA747-436's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Now there's a question.
    Posts
    5,741

    Default

    Actually we have a few fail safe devices to stop something like that happening.

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pbateson
    That 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.
    Make that two crash too many, regardless of the non fatality, the first month isnt even over yet, with this rate of incidents, I mean if it continues this way this is not looking good, Happy wings, guys !
    Inactive from May 1 2009.

  16. #56
    JetPhotos.Net Crew afkabruce98's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    437

    Default

    Hey, the BBC just contacted me asking to use this shot in their 6 o'clock bulletin.
    http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6136618&nseq=9
    I'm supposed to get on screen name credit, so if any of you UK guys see it, would you kindly let me know if they kept their word (seeing they are using the image for free!).
    Cheers.

  17. #57
    Senior Member BA747-436's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Now there's a question.
    Posts
    5,741

    Default

    You tool Seth, there's money to be made there. lol

    Ill keep an eye out.

  18. #58
    JetPhotos.Net Crew afkabruce98's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    437

    Default

    Well, unfortunately those stingy poms wouldn't part with any $$. So I thought a little publicity is better than nothing.

  19. #59
    Senior Member BA747-436's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Now there's a question.
    Posts
    5,741

    Default

    Dam tight ass news agency's. Well yeah I guess your right publicity is better than a kick in the teeth. At least you can now put BBC down on your client list

  20. #60
    Member Half Bottle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    426

    Default

    So, any news this morning on the actual, you know, plane crash?


    Anyone who knows me knows how I despise all this off-topic thread creep in safety fora.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •