BA Boeing 777 Crash Lands at LHR

[GHarrall 494]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm

[Mochi 82]

It will be interesting to see what caused this accident, a modern airliner with all that redundancy built into to every system could end up like that.A passanger spoke on a news channel - he must have not been by a window. He told of thinking it was a rough landing but only realiased a problem had happened when they were led out of the plane via CHUTES!! Amazing. 136 very lucky passangers. 2 amazing pilots and the professional cabin crew.

[GHarrall 494]

Pilot is reported to have said that they had lost all power and had to glide to the runway.Seems odd.......Glenn

[Guest PARADISE]

I'm not familiar with 777 systems, but that sounds like fuel starvation to me. Could have inadvertently switched to an empty fuel tank, or just plain ran out of fuel..............it happens, even to the best of them.I do know that a "dirty" 777 glides about as well as a wet crowbar...........crew should be commended for getting her down as safe as possible.

[Mochi 82]

That would be odd indeed. A qantus 747 had a power outage recently on descent into BKK but even then, they had battery power to get by on (albiet for just 1 hour) to lose all redundant electric power is something that isn't allowed to happen.But this incident is strange in that to lose BOTH engines power on approach. Losing all electrical power (including battery) is something we won't know until much later.Fuel starvation? The pilot would have declared this to ATC at some point surley.

[greggerm 312]

> Could have inadvertently switched to an empty fuel tank, or just plain ran out of fuel..............it happens, even to the best of them.Needless to say, if was one of the best of them, they would surely lose that title just as soon as the {BONG} of the engine-out alarm was heard in the cockpit... (Presuming non-malfunction related fuel starvation was the cause, of course)

[GHarrall 494]

The article on the BBC website now claims that the captain lost all power with no advance warning. All electronics were also lost. This is based on a discussion with ground crew and is not an official statement however.This all seems VERY strange.............EDIT - New article appeared on BBC: "What Went Wrong"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7194569.stmGlenn

[mgh 89]

Indeed!Let's wait for some official statements and not speculate based on what an airport worker says the captain said to him.

[Staffan 12]

Well,...probably they had an AP and FMC from Wilco or Captain Sim installed. :-lol :-lol

Staffan[/font size]

http://www.scandicair.com/images/fs9_pilots_club.gifFlightsimmer since 1987Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz, 1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo flashed to a X850 XT PE, Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0c, W XP Home with SP2, E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA, Lacie 250Gb Extern HDBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

[cat 2]

What would the 777 recommended fuel reserve be, on theChina to GB leg, with winter weather variables?Peter Sydney Australia

[Paul Golding 92]

I think there's a bit of assuming going on with the speculation, in that people are assuming complete loss of power = engines off.Statements made by passengers and eyewitnesses on the TV have included statements along the lines of the "engines roaring before touchdown", "banking sharply" and "high angle of attack".So far, not one person has said it glided quietly overhead and a number of passengers were interviewed and stated they just thought it was a bumping landing. One would have thought if there was no engine sound, this would have been mentioned?Paul

[Guest nihongo]

I have a good question.Does the 777 have sensors in the fuel tank like a car that tells the pilots how much fuel is left? If so, then we can rule out the fuel scenario.The only other time this was an event was in the 767 Canada-US flight where a 767 was loaded with 'pounds' of fuel instead of kilograms, because the Canadians use metric and the Americans Imperial.The Chinese, I am quite sure, use metric (they train here in AUstralia, I know the China Southern boys and Cathay Pacific guys). But I would assume the fuel is not measured in kilograms, but pounds, although I could be wrong. In Perth I have always seen Celcius been used for Dewpoint temperature broadcast.If I knew the following data, I would be able to give everyone at avsim a reasonable assessment of what actually happened.1. Beijing Who loads the fuel for BA in Beijing, and do they use the Metric system, including kilograms?2. Does the 777 have a in built backup system which will alert pilots to low fuel?3. With 180 PAX on board (about half the full load) and (if it is correct-which i didn't assume at first) if there is no fuel on board, this would explain for the miraculous glide in landing which could not have occurred (I believe) if the fuel tanks had fuel in them. Also, another good reason to suspect fuel loss is the pilot didn't restart the engines???? No fuel, so why bother?I also suspect no fuel leaks upon evacuation of the aircraft.What needs to happen is I need evidence to support the fact the 777 has a fuel tank guage or it is traditionally based on the similar 767 which experienced the power loss incident at full altitude and glided in to an unused runway. Has anything changed? I do like the 777 very much. I do hope the system didn't fail, but it is a human designed system, and the same airline that brought us an emergency landing in Scotland due to its lack of foresight in a LA to London flight 747 where it lost one engine. Should have landed in Chicago. The passengers get the night free. and BA get to pay for it, not happy eh, better keep the aircraft going I would say from company execs....BA may have excellent pilots, but their economic and logistical thus safety capabilities are really lacking.http://f111raaf.blogspot.comSave the RAAF F111s, keep Australia's Strategic capability.

[craig_read 43]

Let's put an end to these statements about fuel.. it's NOT low fuel that caused this.. even without any fuel instruments.. fuel at landing could be worked out to the nearest 2 or 3 tonnes.. regardless.. It's all carefully worked out and loaded.. They don't simply rock up to the ramp and say "fill her up".. They know what they want and request that amount..As for fuel warning.. of course there are warning systems.. for a start.. the FMC will flag.. INSUFFICIENT FUEL.. if you drop below your set RESERVE.. let alone if you drop below 0.. and you'll have FUEL LOW warnings on the upper EICAS.. Not to mention.. if a fuel pump goes low pressure the EICAS also warns.. and the overhead should show this too.. I can't see.. any way.. in which an aircraft as advanced as the 777 could possibly run out of gas.. on an approach.. There are way too many ways to tell fuel is low and far too many warnings.. It would take someone sitting in the cockpit putting their fingers in their ears closing their eyes and going "la la la la la la la la" for a low fuel prompt to go unnoticed VERY early..I don't know what the cause was.. but speculation will do no good.. Total power failure.. not sure exactly what that means.. What I find hard to believe is.. passengers would have noticed a "total power failure" and at first most thought it was simply a rough landing.. sounds like lighting etc was working ok to me! So "total power failure" needs to be defined I think..Not going to speculate anymore I don't think.. but dying to know more..CheersCraig

[Gavin 99]

>I have a good question.>>Does the 777 have sensors in the fuel tank like a car that>tells the pilots how much fuel is left? If so, then we can>rule out the fuel scenario.>The only other time this was an event was in the 767 Canada-US>flight where a 767 was loaded with 'pounds' of fuel instead of>kilograms, because the Canadians use metric and the Americans>Imperial.>>The Chinese, I am quite sure, use metric (they train here in>AUstralia, I know the China Southern boys and Cathay Pacific>guys). But I would assume the fuel is not measured in>kilograms, but pounds, although I could be wrong. In Perth I>have always seen Celcius been used for Dewpoint temperature>broadcast.>>If I knew the following data, I would be able to give everyone>at avsim a reasonable assessment of what actually happened.>>1. Beijing Who loads the fuel for BA in Beijing, and do they>use the Metric system, including kilograms?>>2. Does the 777 have a in built backup system which will alert>pilots to low fuel?>>3. >>With 180 PAX on board (about half the full load) and (if it is>correct-which i didn't assume at first) if there is no fuel on>board, this would explain for the miraculous glide in landing>which could not have occurred (I believe) if the fuel tanks>had fuel in them. Also, another good reason to suspect fuel>loss is the pilot didn't restart the engines???? No fuel, so>why bother?>>I also suspect no fuel leaks upon evacuation of the aircraft.>>What needs to happen is I need evidence to support the fact>the 777 has a fuel tank guage or it is traditionally based on>the similar 767 which experienced the power loss incident at>full altitude and glided in to an unused runway. Has anything>changed? I do like the 777 very much. I do hope the system>didn't fail, but it is a human designed system, and the same>airline that brought us an emergency landing in Scotland due>to its lack of foresight in a LA to London flight 747 where it>lost one engine. Should have landed in Chicago. The passengers>get the night free. and BA get to pay for it, not happy eh,>better keep the aircraft going I would say from company>execs....>>BA may have excellent pilots, but their economic and>logistical thus safety capabilities are really lacking.>>http://f111raaf.blogspot.com>>Save the RAAF F111s, keep Australia's Strategic capability.You're still upset about the rugby world cup, aren't you? ;-)

[Guest rmce]

Also crap at landing on grass!