BA jet lands short at Heathrow

smigaldi said:
Wonder if he will log that as a short field or soft field landing?
Click to expand...

Rinker Buck's story about his dad crashing their T6 Texan through a chicken coop. "Hey Dad! You made the runway! It counts as a landing! " and no accident report was required.
 
...touching down several hundred meters short of the airport's south runway, close to a perimeter road, with its emergency chutes deployed.
Click to expand...

It touched down with it's emergency chutes deployed? Assuming that's not just a dangling modifier, then someone's either making up these emergency chutes (the 777 doesn't have a BRS, does it?) or someone opened a door in flight (unlikely, to say the least), or this is just another one of those quality witness reports.

Either way, looks like those guys did a hellofa job saving skin and ticket. The tin could be worse. Any landing you can walk away from, right? That third pictures on there is pretty striking, with the gear strut driven up through the wing. I'm interested to hear what happened with this one!
 
I think "emergency chutes" might be the Kings English term for "evacuation slide". That makes the most sense, as I doubt a 777 has drag chutes.

Pete
 
The 777 isn't equipped with BAPS, the Boeing Airframe Parachute System? ;)

Frank posted the METARs on anudder board:
EGLL 171320Z 22016KT 9999 BKN014 BKN020 11/09 Q0996 TEMPO 24020G32KT 6000 SHRA BKN015CB
EGLL 171250Z 20013KT 9999 BKN008 10/08 Q0996 BECMG 24018G28KT SCT012 BKN020
EGLL 171220Z 21014KT 180V240 9999 SCT008 BKN010 09/08 Q0997 TEMPO 21018G28KT 4000 RADZ BKN008
EGLL 171150Z 20014KT 170V240 9999 FEW006 SCT010 09/08 Q0997 TEMPO 20018G28KT 4000 RADZ BKN006

Perhaps it was a mismanaged approach.
 
Reading the whole sentence, it's only describing the condition shown in the photo, not the condition of the plane before landing.

I suppose this is a "gear off" landing as opposed to a "gear up" landing.

What concerns me is

The BBC said an unidentified Heathrow worker told the broadcaster that he had spoken to the pilot. The pilot said, according to the worker, that the plane's electronics had failed and that he was forced to glide it to the ground.


Teller1900 said:
It touched down with it's emergency chutes deployed? Assuming that's not just a dangling modifier, then someone's either making up these emergency chutes (the 777 doesn't have a BRS, does it?) or someone opened a door in flight (unlikely, to say the least), or this is just another one of those quality witness reports.

Either way, looks like those guys did a hellofa job saving skin and ticket. The tin could be worse. Any landing you can walk away from, right? That third pictures on there is pretty striking, with the gear strut driven up through the wing. I'm interested to hear what happened with this one!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Maybe translates to, "all the stuff that flys the plane for me failed and I had to fly it myself".

The BBC said an unidentified Heathrow worker told the broadcaster that he had spoken to the pilot. The pilot said, according to the worker, that the plane's electronics had failed and that he was forced to glide it to the ground.[/quote]
 
From today's AP

"I didn't speak to the pilot, but I saw him, and he looked very pale," Venter said."

I bet he did.:eek:
 
Last night on the late news they were saying it was dual engine failure. They mentioned several potential reasons for such an event but failed to include fuel starvation. It will be real interesting to see what they come up with.

It was funny that most of the passengers interviewed said they just thought it was a really rough landing until they left the slides and looked back at the smoking wreckage. Only then did they realize it was a crash! Would make a great Monty Python Skit.
 
wby0nder said:
It was funny that most of the passengers interviewed said they just thought it was a really rough landing until they left the slides and looked back at the smoking wreckage. Only then did they realize it was a crash! Would make a great Monty Python Skit.
Click to expand...

Funny...it usually happens the other way around for me - after I land and we taxi in, people seem to often ask if we crashed. Or were shot down.

Both CNN and BBC have some good video of the scene. CNN's Miles O'Brian actually did a pretty decent job of explaining for the general public what could have happened. Here's the latest story...sounds like this (and the PDF therein) may provide at least preliminary answers.
 
I flew out of Gatwick yesterday morning. Almost chose Heathrow, 'cept I got better seats and pricing from Gatwick.

Weather was fine. Winds were fine. However, we had really stiff and severe headwinds heading west (>150 kts componant most of the way, per the airshow system).... and that was just the componant - given the heading vs track on the cabin display, I'm betting winds aloft were much greater than that on a cross-wind basis.

Given that there was a dual engine failure 2 miles from the airport (per the investigative body), with stiff headwinds, and no post-crash fire, I'm really curious about the fuel situation. China to UK is a LONG flight, even for a 777.

LONDON (AP) -- The engines on a British Airways plane that crash-landed at London's Heathrow airport failed to respond for a demand to increase thrust about two miles before it reached the runway, a preliminary accident report said Friday.
.......
David Gleave, the chief safety investigator at Aviation Hazard Analysis, a private company, said a bird strike or fuel shortage would be among the possibilities investigators would consider as being behind the accident.
Click to expand...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITAIN_PLANE?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=AMERICAS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It's not THAT long. 4,400 miles. We do it from Chicago to Beijing and it is over 6500 miles. Besides, the accident report mentions fuel leaking from the wing after the accident.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aa...heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm
Click to expand...



I guess the big question will also be was it leaking before. But forgive me if I am wrong but I would imagine the fuel management system on the 777 is a wee bit more accurate than the FO with a whiz wheel and a flight log. So even if there was a leak would there not be some sort of indication?
 
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.
Click to expand...
To me, that isn't saying that the engines quit, just that they didn't respond to a request for additional power. As Greg noted, there was fuel seen leaking from the plane after landing:
A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire.
Click to expand...
 
gprellwitz said:
To me, that isn't saying that the engines quit, just that they didn't respond to a request for additional power. As Greg noted, there was fuel seen leaking from the plane after landing:
Click to expand...

The left gear leg went through the wing...I think leaking fuel was inevitable.:yes::dunno:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Matt, can you explain why that would be inevitable?
Click to expand...

Greg - I wanted to thank you for your insight and your abstention from speculation. I read the thread (nice rhyme :) ) over on the red board....
 
Speculation (and that's all it is at this point) by a NW A-340 FO I was flying with last night is that he was flying the BA mandated 7 mile stabilized approach at low speed, got caught in wind shear and those big turbofans couldn't spool up fast enough. Speculation. It will be interesting to see the final report.
 
Ghery said:
It will be interesting to see the final report.
Click to expand...
There is a rumor going about that someone on board had a tube of toothpaste that 4oz instead of the required 3oz and it upset the whole W&B such that the decent angle was not right and before the crew was able to re-trim a sudden gust of wind caused a rudder deflection and a slip occurred thus plunging the plane into a death spiral. It was only with great fortitude that the crew was able to wrestle control from the auto land computer by using their iPhone interface and land the plane safely albeit just before the runway. Or so I heard. ;);)

I also heard their flight plan had been closed prior to touchdown and the plane was no longer receiving instruction from the ground.

:goofy::goofy:
 
smigaldi said:
There is a rumor going about that someone on board had a tube of toothpaste that 4oz instead of the required 3oz and it upset the whole W&B such that the decent angle was not right and before the crew was able to re-trim a sudden gust of wind caused a rudder deflection and a slip occurred thus plunging the plane into a death spiral. It was only with great fortitude that the crew was able to wrestle control from the auto land computer by using their iPhone interface and land the plane safely albeit just before the runway. Or so I heard. ;);)

I also heard their flight plan had been closed prior to touchdown and the plane was no longer receiving instruction from the ground.

:goofy::goofy:
Click to expand...

I heard the guy in 3C turned his cell phone on before landing and the signal interference confused the autopilot.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Matt, can you explain why that would be inevitable?
Click to expand...

I think what Matt is thinking is that the strut passing through the wing would have punctured a wing tank, provided there is a tank that far inboard on the wing. I agree with Matt's speculation assuming there was still fuel in the possibly perferated fuel tank.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Matt, can you explain why that would be inevitable?
Click to expand...
I was, as so many have been doing, assuming that if the wings took that kind of beating, there's a good chance that the gas tanks or fuel lines would have suffered that kind of abuse, too. I realize my plane is nothing like the 777, but our motive flow lines run right above the gear...the story is, the last time someone drove the gear through the wings of a 1900, it broke open the collector tank and a motive flow line. Again, no fire, but lots of fuel spilled. That was the first thing that came to mind for me when they mentioned the fuel spill - those wings and engines took a beating, and that can't do good things for the fuel system.
 
RMCN172RG said:
I heard the guy in 3C turned his cell phone on before landing and the signal interference confused the autopilot.
Click to expand...
No, no, it was the errant signal from somebody flying their RC airplane. Oops, I didn't mean to do that...

That said, I wonder how many conspiracy theorists are going to say that it was some deliberate electronic interference from outside the airplane.
 
smigaldi said:
There is a rumor going about that someone on board had a tube of toothpaste that 4oz instead of the required 3oz and it upset the whole W&B such that the decent angle was not right and before the crew was able to re-trim a sudden gust of wind caused a rudder deflection and a slip occurred thus plunging the plane into a death spiral. It was only with great fortitude that the crew was able to wrestle control from the auto land computer by using their iPhone interface and land the plane safely albeit just before the runway. Or so I heard. ;);)

I also heard their flight plan had been closed prior to touchdown and the plane was no longer receiving instruction from the ground.

:goofy::goofy:
Click to expand...

It's so crazy, it could just be true! Maybe the TSA was right :hairraise::hairraise:
 
Now that I stop to think about it, I suppose it is possible to breach a tank the way the gear failed. The fuel lines run through the wheel well. I think maybe the boost pumps are in the wheel well too. Not sure. I have no idea how the tanks are constructed. I do know they pretty much go clear to the wingroot. If the forward attach point of the gear is mounted to the stub spar and the wing tank is adjacent to that spar, it could break the tank.

But, a breeched tank does not HAVE to mean an automatic fire, as has been stated before.
 
AWACSEng said:
I think what Matt is thinking is that the strut passing through the wing would have punctured a wing tank, provided there is a tank that far inboard on the wing. I agree with Matt's speculation assuming there was still fuel in the possibly perferated fuel tank.
Click to expand...

Would you be assuming that the tank would be ABOVE the gear attach point? There is not enough physical room to allow that. The tank is in FRONT of the gear, hence my statement. But I had second thoughts about the breech possibility. See my response to Matt.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Would you be assuming that the tank would be ABOVE the gear attach point? There is not enough physical room to allow that. The tank is in FRONT of the gear, hence my statement. But I had second thoughts about the breech possibility. See my response to Matt.
Click to expand...

Not a 777 expert, but I'd think that if the gear goes ripping off the wing its gonna take some surrounding structure with it. 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?

I'm amazed that there was no fire. This is miraculous for those folks onboard.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
But, a breeched tank does not HAVE to mean an automatic fire, as has been stated before.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all surprised that there was no fire. Jet-A is amazingly inert as a liquid. Have you ever seen the video of someone putting out a cigarette in a tin full of jet fuel? On a cold overcast day, I can't imagine there was much to force the fuel to vaporize, and the grass would have kept sparking to a minimum...I can't imagine the engines would have been putting out much more than latent heat after they scraped the ground, either. Like has been said, though, there was enough damage there that even if there's no take that far in-board/aft, it almost had to pull out enough metal to get a transfer line somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top