BA 777 crash at Heathrow

Rich Ahrens wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
:

On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" wrote:

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-18, wrote:
Boeing sent an AOG team
^^^
What's an AOG team?
--
"Aircraft On Ground"?
Al G
Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground
costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.

Dean
It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
body all look shot.


I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.

FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:

Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.

"They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."

Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
aircraft on airbags, he says.

The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.

Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the
facts.
Gilbert

Gilbert Smith wrote in
:

Rich Ahrens wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
:

On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" wrote:

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-18, wrote:
Boeing sent an AOG team
^^^
What's an AOG team?
--
"Aircraft On Ground"?
Al G
Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the
ground
costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.

Dean
It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
body all look shot.


I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.

FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:

Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.

"They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."

Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
aircraft on airbags, he says.

The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.

Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the
facts.


What facts?


Bertie

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:50:44 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Big John wrote in
:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:22:34 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Big John wrote in
:




----------------------------clip-------------------------------

The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do
Cat3
autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost
perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS.
Used to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use
auto aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing.
Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway
excursion, but I can't remember where.


Bertie

Thanks for the info. I'll rest a little easier when in back end and
approach is to minimums in heavy rain at night.

Oh yeah, it works very well. We can land in absolutely zero/zero
perfectly safely, though we actully need a little bit of vis to be
legal just so we can find outr way of the runway! But in many places
we land with no DH at all, and no requirement to see anything before
touchdown, though we always see something. We can land in places we
can't take off from! On touchdown, the airplane will continue down the
runway absolutely on the center line. The autobrakes will stop us the
speedbrakes auto-deploy and the only thing we do manually is select
reverse if we want it.



380 may not have been current? You notice that things seem to get
recycled at later dates when somone just receives it and forwards
with no date of event.


Yeah, I can't remember, exactly, but i think it was some time ago.

Dunno.

Bertie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-----------------------------


Bertie

I can see now why the Airlines are talking about taking Private Pilots
who have just upgraded to Commercial and putting in right seat to fill
coming Pilot shortage due to lack of retired Mil Pilots.

Knew you all had zero zero but haden't read that was authorized,
except only at a few airports with special birds and trained aircrews.
Big brother all the way.


That's right. The aircraft has to be certified, and the runway and the
crew. There's not a lot to it with us. the autopilot does it and we
monitor. There are a number of gates where we check to make sure it's
all working and the right lights come on and what not, but it's pretty
much just switch the stuff on and guide it onto the ILS. Almost every
large airliner still flying can do it nowadays.
We're not licenced for 0/0. nobody is because the airport would be
logjammed with people taxiing into each other! We can land with 200' vis
which ain't much!



Bertie
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bertie

This thread is getting long so will be my last to it. Tnx for all the
current info.

Our mins were 200/1 and I landed with that many times.

Became so routine never gave it a second thought. Many landing were in
North Bay San Fran (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog. Thick and heavy
and no R/W until at mins (or below). Then landing lights to see stripe
to clear R/W and taxi back to ramp.

Have a good holiday tomorrow.

Big John

Big John wrote in
:

This thread is getting long so will be my last to it. Tnx for all the
current info.

Our mins were 200/1 and I landed with that many times.

Yes, well for me too, and not that long ago! Still is if there;s no Cat 3
or Cat 2]

Became so routine never gave it a second thought. Many landing were in
North Bay San Fran (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog. Thick and heavy
and no R/W until at mins (or below). Then landing lights to see stripe
to clear R/W and taxi back to ramp.

Have a good holiday tomorrow.

Thanks, but work for me tomorrow!

See ya, and look after your , you know!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Gilbert Smith wrote in
:

Rich Ahrens wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
:

On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" wrote:

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-18, wrote:
Boeing sent an AOG team
^^^
What's an AOG team?
--
"Aircraft On Ground"?
Al G
Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the
ground
costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.

Dean
It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
body all look shot.


I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.

FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:

Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.

"They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."

Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
aircraft on airbags, he says.

The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.

Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the
facts.


What facts?


Bertie

They craned it onto some multi-wheeled platforms, complete with wings,
and trundled it off to the hangars.

Gilbert.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:14:08 -0600, Big John wrote:

Many landing were in North Bay San Fran
(Hamilton Field) with the bay fog.

Ha... I was born in the Hamilton Field hospital.

--
Dallas

Latest update:


"Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) 1st
Preliminary Report on Friday 18 January 2008 at 1700 hrs, work has
continued on all fronts to identify why neither engine responded to
throttle lever inputs during the final approach. The 150 tonne aircraft
was moved from the threshold of Runway 27L to an airport apron on Sunday
evening, allowing the airport to return to normal operations.

The AAIB, sensitive to the needs of the industry including Boeing, Rolls
Royce, British Airways and other Boeing 777 operators and crews, is
issuing this update to provide such further factual information as is
now available.

As previously reported, whilst the aircraft was stabilised on an ILS
approach with the autopilot engaged, the autothrust system commanded an
increase in thrust from both engines. The engines both initially
responded but after about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine
reduced. Some eight seconds later the thrust reduced on the left engine
to a similar level. The engines did not shut down and both engines
continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight idle, but
less than the commanded thrust.

Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the
aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine control commands were
performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust.

All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and
continued lack of response of the engines to throttle lever inputs are
being examined, in close cooperation with Boeing, Rolls Royce and
British Airways. This work includes a detailed analysis and examination
of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine
fuel nozzles.

Further factual information will be released as and when available. (AAIB)"

No independent verification of this, but interesting




BOEING 777 Crash



Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the

approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF transmitter
to block out

any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
mile

range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls)
to sense a

"overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation
for

the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.



We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be

potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad
guys

could use to bring down an airliner.






On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...30291_apbritai...

Tina wrote in
:

No independent verification of this, but interesting




BOEING 777 Crash



Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the

approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF transmitter
to block out

any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
mile

range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls)
to sense a

"overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation
for

the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.



We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be

potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad
guys

could use to bring down an airliner.






On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
shear cou
ld have been an issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rld/2004130291
_apbritai.
..



This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
happened.
It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a hile
with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down in a
similar fashion in LA, I think it was.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message .. .
Tina wrote in
:


This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
happened.
It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a hile
with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down in a
similar fashion in LA, I think it was.


Bertie


Maybe Bush's motorcade was passing underneath?