BA jet lands short at Heathrow

Checkout_my_Six said:
Since the structural member surrounding the gear is pretty much wet with fuel.....there would have to be some kind of breech of fuel...No?
Click to expand...

See, THAT'S what I don't know for sure. I don't know how the wing tank in that area is constructed. I do know that the gear is mounted to a couple of spars in the wing, but I DON'T know if the fuel tank is attached to the spar.
 
In the E-3 aka 707, the main gear are mounted to a wing spar. On the outboard side of that spar is our no.2 main fuel tank on the left wing and no.3 main on the left. I'm an engineer by title only, not by education, but I think that if we managed to shove the mains through the wing, some significant damage would be done to said tanks.
 
Ghery said:
Speculation (and that's all it is at this point) by a NW A-340 FO I was flying with last night...
Click to expand...


I guess he or she would be the very first of these? :D

(Or maybe it's A330?)
 
Teller1900 said:
The left gear leg went through the wing...I think leaking fuel was inevitable.:yes::dunno:
Click to expand...
Leaking fuel requires the presence of said fuel. So it wouldn't be inevitable were there no fuel aboard. Hence, significant quantities of fuel leaking prove that there was fuel aboard. It does not, of course, mean that said fuel was in a tank that could provide fuel directly to the engines.

That said, the wat the accident report was written does not lead me to suspect fuel starvation, though I'm not ruling it out at this point.
 
gprellwitz said:
Leaking fuel requires the presence of said fuel. So it wouldn't be inevitable were there no fuel aboard. Hence, significant quantities of fuel leaking prove that there was fuel aboard. It does not, of course, mean that said fuel was in a tank that could provide fuel directly to the engines.

That said, the wat the accident report was written does not lead me to suspect fuel starvation, though I'm not ruling it out at this point.
Click to expand...

There are only three tanks on a 777. One in each wing and one in the fuselage. The center tank would have been empty. Therefore the only tanks with fuel would have been the wing tanks. In normal operations, the engines run off their respective tanks.

Given the fact that one of the gear was literally ripped from the airplane, it IS conceivable that the tank was breeched. Which means to me, that there was fuel in at least one tank that was available to the engine. Whether or not the fuel was actually getting to the engine remains to be determined.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
There are only three tanks on a 777. One in each wing and one in the fuselage. The center tank would have been empty. Therefore the only tanks with fuel would have been the wing tanks. In normal operations, the engines run off their respective tanks.

Given the fact that one of the gear was literally ripped from the airplane, it IS conceivable that the tank was breeched. Which means to me, that there was fuel in at least one tank that was available to the engine. Whether or not the fuel was actually getting to the engine remains to be determined.
Click to expand...

Do you pump fuel from the center to the wing tanks? In the RC135 we would pump into our center tank and then back out to the engines.

To AWACSEng do you guys still have fuel cell 0 and 1 in the E3? We had them pulled int he RC for extra equipment storage.
 
smigaldi said:
Do you pump fuel from the center to the wing tanks? In the RC135 we would pump into our center tank and then back out to the engines.
Click to expand...

No. The engines are capable of feeding straight out of the center tank.
 
These quotes are from the article posted above: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3216746.ece

In that article I saw the following quotes:

Linked Article said:
A fuel problem was another hypothesis. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, internet forums populated by pilots were rife with speculation that BA038 had run out of fuel.
Click to expand...

Linked Article said:
Some experts are sceptical that such a problem affected BA038. One former pilot on the 777 pointed out that during landing, fuel is going directly from tank to engine - there may be no transferring from one tank to another - and it is unlikely that both engines would suffer such a problem at the same time.
Click to expand...

I believe I saw this exact statement on one of the threads - can't remember if it was here or elsewhere.

Although there's no evidence that's actually where the information for that paragraph came from, it's definitely something for all of us to keep in mind. Although everything that has been posted here has clearly been speculation among pilots, to a snoopy reporter, it may appear to be highly-qualified statements of fact.

Just thought I would point that out!
 
Last edited:
The fact that the landing gear punctured the wing, and there was NO FIRE, sure makes it sound like fuel starvation was at least a likely possibility...
 
TangoWhiskey said:
The fact that the landing gear punctured the wing, and there was NO FIRE, sure makes it sound like fuel starvation was at least a likely possibility...
Click to expand...

Except that the accident report indicates fuel all over the place. If there is no source of ignition, there is no fire.

Also, considering that the engines were feeding out of their respective tanks, it is HIGHLY unlikely that BOTH tanks would run out of fuel AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Except that the accident report indicates fuel all over the place. If there is no source of ignition, there is no fire.

Also, considering that the engines were feeding out of their respective tanks, it is HIGHLY unlikely that BOTH tanks would run out of fuel AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.
Click to expand...

That's what I get for replying before I've read the whole thread (or the report you refer to!)... I had only watched the BBC video.
 
For that, Troy, you get a Birthday *****-Slap! :D
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
These quotes are from the article posted above: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3216746.ece

In that article I saw the following quotes:





I believe I saw this exact statement on one of the threads - can't remember if it was here or elsewhere.

Although there's no evidence that's actually where the information for that paragraph came from, it's definitely something for all of us to keep in mind. Although everything that has been posted here has clearly been speculation among pilots, to a snoopy reporter, it may appear to be highly-qualified statements of fact.

Just thought I would point that out!
Click to expand...

You know David, I've often wondered if we could have a private forum attached to PoA, maybe one you have to pay a nominal fee for ($5 a year or somesuch), and be "Approved" to join in by the PoA managers. Basically, a private area for people to discuss openly such aviation issues without what we say being used by the general public...

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Update from an industry insider:

BOTH ENGINES INITIALLY RESPONDED TO THE DEMAND FOR INCREASED THRUST BUT AFTER 3 SECS THE RIGHT ENGINE REDUCED THRUST, AFTER 8 SECS THE LEFT ENGINE REDUCED THRUST. BOTH ENGINES WERE PRODUCING THRUST SOMEWHERE ABOVE FLIGHT IDLE BUT BELOW COMMANDED THRUST. INDICATIONS ARE THAT ADEQUATE FUEL WAS ONBOARD AND THE EECS WERE OPERATING NORMALLY.

THE FUEL METERING VALVES WERE IN THE COMMANDED OPEN POSITION BUT INDICATIONS ARE THAT INADEQUATE FUEL FLOW WAS AVAILABLE. CURRENTLY A CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FUEL AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETE FUEL FLOW PATH FROM THE AIRCRAFT TANKS TO THE ENGINE FUEL NOZZLES ARE UNDERWAY.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Update from an industry insider:

BOTH ENGINES INITIALLY RESPONDED TO THE DEMAND FOR INCREASED THRUST BUT AFTER 3 SECS THE RIGHT ENGINE REDUCED THRUST, AFTER 8 SECS THE LEFT ENGINE REDUCED THRUST. BOTH ENGINES WERE PRODUCING THRUST SOMEWHERE ABOVE FLIGHT IDLE BUT BELOW COMMANDED THRUST. INDICATIONS ARE THAT ADEQUATE FUEL WAS ONBOARD AND THE EECS WERE OPERATING NORMALLY.

THE FUEL METERING VALVES WERE IN THE COMMANDED OPEN POSITION BUT INDICATIONS ARE THAT INADEQUATE FUEL FLOW WAS AVAILABLE. CURRENTLY A CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FUEL AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLETE FUEL FLOW PATH FROM THE AIRCRAFT TANKS TO THE ENGINE FUEL NOZZLES ARE UNDERWAY.
Click to expand...

Hmm... Bad gas maybe? (And no, I don't mean to sound like I'm in a Gas-X commercial.)

That'd almost be a little reassuring were it found to be the issue.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Hmm... Bad gas maybe? (And no, I don't mean to sound like I'm in a Gas-X commercial.)

That'd almost be a little reassuring were it found to be the issue.
Click to expand...

I don't know... on that long of a trip, why would it not manifest itself until the end? And on more than one aircraft that had been fueled from the same source?

:dunno:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I don't know... on that long of a trip, why would it not manifest itself until the end? And on more than one aircraft that had been fueled from the same source?

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Know less than enough to effectively comment, but one hypothetical scenario could involve contamination (water, paraffin, something else?) which settled in an area of the tank away from the fuel pickups and, in the cold of high-altitude flight, froze or solidified. Subsequently, with combination of descent and maneuvering jostling in approach, dislodged and carried to pickup, blocks same.

But even if you disregard the question of whether the physical setup of the tanks could even allow this to occur (which I doubt), what are the odds of it happening on two completely independent tanks, at almost the same moment? Perhaps, in this utterly unqualified scenario, the common element is the change in deck angle associated with the final approach segment- more nose-up.

Speculation upon speculation, without benefit of qualification or fact. Perhaps I am qualified to be a member of congress? :dunno:
 
gprellwitz said:
Or an on-air commentator!:mad::yes:
Click to expand...

Ehh, no, he admitted it was speculative. To be a reporter/anchor you have to swear to it as the unimpeachable truth, point out that those facts are only available here (no thanks to the guys at the station across town), then toss it to the reporter. Or the weather guy, depending upon how many nights this story has run/what the level of importance (ratings shares) is. Sorry Spike, no TV for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top