BA 777 landing accident at LHR

[HalcyonDays]

Some interesting new pictures....:

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html

Picture in the fourth row, second one in : what is the hole ?

Also, maybe an AAIB interim statement due within 48 hours of the crash, ie. maybe tomorrow :

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_ne...nuary_2008.cfm

[Dmmoore]

Has there been any information released indicating any reason for both engines to flame out?

The last I heard, the pilots report power loss as 500 feet. The PAX reported normal cabin lighting until touchdown but at 1 PM they may not have noticed.

Don
Refugee from ADC

[Dmmoore]

Some interesting new pictures....:

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html

Picture in the fourth row, second one in : what is the hole ?

Also, maybe an AAIB interim statement due within 48 hours of the crash, ie. maybe tomorrow :

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_ne...nuary_2008.cfm

Excellent photo's!
The pictures showing the engine intakes indicate both engines were not producing power when they were stopped by damage. However after touch down, the pilots would have retarded the engines to idle.

Don
Refugee from ADC

[Shaggy]

Something else that impresses me that we take for granted are the actions of ATC. those boy and girls must have been working their butts off for a while, especially at the point of the accident.

Well done ATC

[Half Bottle]

Some interesting new pictures....:

http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html

Picture in the fourth row, second one in : what is the hole ?

I think it's where the departing main gear impacted the fuselage.

[BA747-436]

Yeah struts from the main gear would have punctured the wing near the root on touchdown at that velocity.
From what I hear the APU ran an auto-startup as the engines both failed, this would give the impression of normal lighting in the cabin although there would have been at least a flicker as the power transition was handed over. Possibly not something anyone would have noticed in daylight though.

[fly4bux]

The 777 APU takes almost a full minute to spool up after a start command. When the engines quit, it shoulda got dark inside, except for the emergency isle lighting. The RAT, should have deployed to provide essential electrics and degraded flight control hydraulics. However, I don't see the RAT deployed in the landing video. (it's BIG!)

With an emergency declared at 500' or less, ATC didn't have time to do anything, other than interrupt a tense situation with..."Say fuel status and Souls on Board...state intentions" and whamo, you've got a bent 777 on your front porch.

[Half Bottle]

With an emergency declared at 500' or less, ATC didn't have time to do anything, other than interrupt a tense situation with..."Say fuel status and Souls on Board...state intentions" and whamo, you've got a bent 777 on your front porch.

Did they declare an emergency? Or are you just speaking hypothetically?

[fly4bux]

NBC reported an emergency declared **prior** to the incident, which in the short hairs was outstanding work by the crew, as it probably got the ARF rolling by the time the first slide popped. (Hopefully)

CNN reports dual engine failure at less than 500' so, between dead stickin'er in and declaring an emergency, a top notch, no notice evac by the cabin crew, I would say they all go into the hall of heroes.

[VA-viking]

Heroes ?

Love the way press & people laude the pilots for saving everyone's life, when statistically the crash was most likely caused by pilot error !
bit like driving a bus drunk and then being praised after a crash because no one was hurt...

[fly4bux]

I don't understand your metaphor of a drunk bus driver vs dual engine flame out at 400'.

[Half Bottle]

I don't understand your metaphor of a drunk bus driver vs dual engine flame out at 400'.

I think he's saying that, statistically speaking, it is probable that the pilots did something that caused the flameout. While he may be correct from a pure numbers game, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion in this specific accident. The bottom line, of course, is that we have no idea whether the pilots will turn out to have done a good job or a poor one.

[T.O.G.A.]

Has it been determined whether or not there was fuel around the crashsite?

Looks like the gear ripped through the tanks.

[Schorsch]

I think he's saying that, statistically speaking, it is probable that the pilots did something that caused the flameout. While he may be correct from a pure numbers game, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion in this specific accident. The bottom line, of course, is that we have no idea whether the pilots will turn out to have done a good job or a poor one.

Halfie,

a good landing is one you can walk away from. An excellent landing is one after which you can use the aircraft again. In conclusion, the pilots did a good job, but not an excellent.

Fuck, that was my first post. And no serious engineering involved ...

[Dmmoore]

I don't understand your metaphor of a drunk bus driver vs dual engine flame out at 400'.

I applaud the crew for getting the big bird on the ground safely. However until the cause of a double engine failure is discovered, I will with hold my final pronouncement.

It's one thing to save an airplane, it's another to have put the airplane in danger by your previous actions, then save your ass.