BA 777 crash at Heathrow

On Jan 18, 1:37 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya wrote:

Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.

A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
wheelbarrow one of those.


But this wasn't a normal landing. The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
power. My Q is that once it was known that power was off, shouldn't
the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster? As it
transpired, it came down some 300 meters from the runway edge.

Wheelbarrowing is just not on, I'd imagine. If there was that much
airspeed, why'd he crash-land short in the first place?


From the sunny Isle of Man.

Sunny in mid-Jan?

Ramapriya

D,

But this wasn't a normal landing.
The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
power.

Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to ask
yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take months,
even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to be fact.
The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will be our first
clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah, humbug!

My Q is that once it was known that power was off,

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!

shouldn't
the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster?

Are you a pilot? The proper reaction to a power loss (which we didn't
know happened) is depending on so many other factors that we as
outsiders can't say. That's why there are professional accident
investigators working on this.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Jan 18, 5:11 pm, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
D,

But this wasn't a normal landing.
The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
power.

Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to ask
yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take months,
even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to be fact.
The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will be our first
clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah, humbug!

My Q is that once it was known that power was off,

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!


Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain himself.



shouldn't
the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster?

Are you a pilot?


Nope, and never claimed to be one.

Ramapriya


The proper reaction to a power loss (which we didn't
know happened) is depending on so many other factors that we as
outsiders can't say. That's why there are professional accident
investigators working on this.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

D Ramapriya wrote in news:c8a37c1e-7561-4bc0-
:

On Jan 18, 1:37 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya wrote:

Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.

A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
wheelbarrow one of those.


But this wasn't a normal landing. The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
power. My Q is that once it was known that power was off, shouldn't
the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster? As it
transpired, it came down some 300 meters from the runway edge.

Yeah, but inside the airport perimiter. whatever he did as far as
hanling was concerned, it would have been a lot worse had he landed
somewhere even shorter. That runway end is littered with roads, hotels,
bus stops, BA offices , all sorts of nasty things to hit. Whatever
happened he got it down without killing anyone. The injuries were
probably mostly in the evacuation.


Wheelbarrowing is just not on, I'd imagine. If there was that much
airspeed, why'd he crash-land short in the first place?



Why would hae have "that much airspeed"? At 500' he would have been back
to Vref+5 or maybe a bit higher. Pushing the nose down might have got
him some speed but at the cost of altitude and glide. The tiny bit of
surplus speed he had was worth sacrificing to avoid hitting something
nasty.
In any case, the "any landing you can walk away from" rule applies.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

D Ramapriya wrote in news:c8a37c1e-7561-4bc0-
:

On Jan 18, 1:37 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya wrote:

Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.

A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
wheelbarrow one of those.


But this wasn't a normal landing. The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
power. My Q is that once it was known that power was off, shouldn't
the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster? As it
transpired, it came down some 300 meters from the runway edge.

Yeah, but inside the airport perimiter. whatever he did as far as
hanling was concerned, it would have been a lot worse had he landed
somewhere even shorter. That runway end is littered with roads, hotels,
bus stops, BA offices , all sorts of nasty things to hit. Whatever
happened he got it down without killing anyone. The injuries were
probably mostly in the evacuation.


Wheelbarrowing is just not on, I'd imagine. If there was that much
airspeed, why'd he crash-land short in the first place?



Why would hae have "that much airspeed"? At 500' he would have been back
to Vref+5 or maybe a bit higher. Pushing the nose down might have got
him some speed but at the cost of altitude and glide. The tiny bit of
surplus speed he had was worth sacrificing to avoid hitting something
nasty.
In any case, the "any landing you can walk away from" rule applies.


Bertie
Absolutely right.

In the gliding movement we are taught to aim at the base of the hedge
if undershooting, then hop over it if possible. This is making use of
ground effect of course, perhaps less of a factor with a passenger
jet.

On a general point, the media always praise the wonderful pilot, he
managed to avoid all the worst hazards, etc. etc. As if anyone would
fly into the side of a building if he could avoid it. Who is thinking
of the passengers at a moment like that ??

Gilbert.

"Blueskies" wrote:

What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...inplane17.html

Regardless of the cause the outcome was positive.

Ron Lee

I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics on
final.


"Blueskies" wrote in message
et...
What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
could have been an issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...inplane17.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ridge wrote:

I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics on
final.

Confirmed on that. The Beeb, The Age, the SMH, and others are
now reporting the same.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHkBSNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAh10AKCq8dux20K7Pnjpvv6eYy 1zQwXAgACg17mE
eD3HSNLGv7B/aIfTZ+ehVtw=
=E5aE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Ridge" wrote in
:


I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics
on final.

Well, the news, ya know?

If they lost both engines they would have lost a lot of electrics unless
they had the APU runnning, which they would not have done most likely.


Bertie

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:59:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Ridge" wrote in
:


I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics
on final.

Well, the news, ya know?

If they lost both engines they would have lost a lot of electrics unless
they had the APU runnning, which they would not have done most likely.


Bertie


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

Whar rpm would the 777 engines windmill on final approach speed if you
know.

Also what RPM would the generators/alternators drop off line?

Do any of those brds have a RAT?

Big John