BA 777 crash at Heathrow

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,

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


If the pilot of that flight would talk to the media before talking to
his bosses and the AIB, he would be beyond stupid. Also, from what I
read on Sky's website, they are citing "sources". Yeah, right.

They may even be right, you know. But it is really smart to wait for the
pros to analyze the accident.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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






BBC America reported a second hand report that the pilot said that all
power was loss.

On Jan 18, 6:11 pm, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
D,

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

If the pilot of that flight would talk to the media before talking to
his bosses and the AIB, he would be beyond stupid. Also, from what I
read on Sky's website, they are citing "sources". Yeah, right.

They may even be right, you know. But it is really smart to wait for the
pros to analyze the accident.


I concur, yes.

Ramapriya

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

D Ramapriya wrote in news:35d049b5-4987-4d4a-b006-
:

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.



Sky News is almost as full of **** as Fox.

Well it would be since it's owned by the same person.

Let me guess, they made it "Breaking news" for about 12 hours, right?



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.

On Jan 17, 5:23*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...

All the speculation on here is amusing as usual.

It will most likely turn out to be one of two things:

1. Pilot error (he may try to blame the equipment for his own mistake,
that has happened before).
2. Some system failure, or combination of configurations that resulted
in an unexpected result.

My money is on 1. given that the reports state that the glideslope was
unusual, and he may simply have gotten himself behind the power curve.

We should know what really happened in about two weeks when the
investigators have finished reviewing the flight data recorder and
voice recorder data, along with their interviews of the crew and pax
and inspection of the plane and impact site.

The airplane will probably be flying again within 6 months to a year.
Boeing sent an AOG team to India once to repair a 747 that was damaged
worse than this 777 in a landing accident, and had it flying again in
about that time.

Dean

On 2008-01-18, wrote:
Boeing sent an AOG team
^^^
What's an AOG team?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390