Close Call at Heathrow...

[JoeBob]

Looks like one less 777 in the fleet, and a bunch of very lucky passengers:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/17/heathrow.incident/index.html

[Andrew Longman]

Lost electronics? Forced to glide in? Engines running?

I'm having trouble connecting the dots.

Amazing there was no fire though. Lucky folks.

[TravelGal]

Read about this in my morning TA (travel agent, not ..... oh forget it), briefing. Leave it Off Camber to provide more info though. ;)

[cameraman]

It hit hard enough to drive the main gear up through the wing:eek:

Amazing nobody was killed.

[Andrew Longman]

The 777 is a fly by wire plane IIRC and the computers that control it have multiple redundancies, no? I seem to recall like 4 back ups.

So if they go out, do they all do out? A computer either works or it doesn't, but could the system controlling, say the rudder work but not the elevators?

If that's the case is the pilot left with only throttling the engines to steer and control the plane?

Also, this must have happened very late in approach or the cabin would have been prepared for a crash landing. Hmmm

[dando]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/17/heathrow.incident/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto

Pics.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/europe/01/17/heathrow.incident/t1home.britair.thur.14.ap.jpg

-Kevin

[JoeBob]

There's some pictures at the bottom of this page: http://www.jetphotos.net/census/aircraft2.php?msnid=777-30314

If you're into threads short on facts but high on baseless speculation, Flyertalk has quite the discussion going on: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=780194

[oddlycalm]

At this piont it's all just speculation, but the fact that they dropped suddenly when the landing gear were deployed would suggest they were without power. Since they had made it all the way from China it's unlikely both engines were dead for long. Probably ran the tanks dry and tried to land it dead stick. Made a damn good job of it as well since everyone is around to complain about it. :thumbup:

oc

[TravelGal]

At this piont it's all just speculation, but the fact that they dropped suddenly when the landing gear were deployed would suggest they were without power. Since they had made it all the way from China it's unlikely both engines were dead for long. Probably ran the tanks dry and tried to land it dead stick. Made a damn good job of it as well since everyone is around to complain about it. :thumbup:

oc

Most plausible explanation I've heard. BA is cheap B'tards.

[Sean Malone]

At this piont it's all just speculation, but the fact that they dropped suddenly when the landing gear were deployed would suggest they were without power. Since they had made it all the way from China it's unlikely both engines were dead for long. Probably ran the tanks dry and tried to land it dead stick. Made a damn good job of it as well since everyone is around to complain about it. :thumbup:

oc

that's what I was thinking too. The captain is a 20 year vet. By the description of the 'landing' it was a 'slam dunk'. Instead of having power to fly her in, he had to glide her in, probably with 0 flap and then stall it into a slam dunk as soon as he was over the runway. I've practiced that a 1000 times in my flight sims. Very difficult in a jumbo.

[jonovision_man]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7194086.stm


An airport worker told the BBC the pilot on the Boeing 777 had said he had lost all power, and had been forced to glide the plane in to land.

All BA short-haul flights from Heathrow have been cancelled and others delayed.

The worker also said the pilot had told him all the electronics had also failed.

"He said he had no warning - it just went," the worker added.

[RusH]

There's some pictures at the bottom of this page: http://www.jetphotos.net/census/aircraft2.php?msnid=777-30314

If you're into threads short on facts but high on baseless speculation, Flyertalk has quite the discussion going on: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=780194

Some good stuff at another site I like to visit also.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3799619/

[Andrew Longman]

If they losed power (out of fuel) do they also lose all electronics? Electrical power is generated from a small turbine, right? Is there some limited battery back up? If not, that would seem to ba a serious liability in a FBW plane.

[oddlycalm]

If they losed power (out of fuel) do they also lose all electronics? Electrical power is generated from a small turbine, right? Is there some limited battery back up? If not, that would seem to ba a serious liability in a FBW plane. Running the tanks dry would kill the APU (auxiliary power unit) as well, but running dry should not have killed the electronics immediately. Probably a lot more to this story.

oc

[cameraman]

One would think that you could not be surprised by running out of fuel in a 777 and if their fuel situation was that drastic they should have declared an emergency and the tower would have known what was happening.

[eiregosod]

twas a "soft landing"

[Andrew Longman]

One would think that you could not be surprised by running out of fuel in a 777 and if their fuel situation was that drastic they should have declared an emergency and the tower would have known what was happening.

You are assuming they were paying attention or didn't believe E really meant empty.

What I don't get is that some witnesses said the engines sounded louder than normal. That suggests to me that they were lower than normal or taking a different route than normal. And that suggests that maybe they knew they were running low on fuel and needed to get on the ground as fast as possible.

Or not

[Gnam]

What I don't get is that some witnesses said the engines sounded louder than normal.
Yeah, I would expect mud and grass to act as a muffler. ;)

Since the reports say the engines just shut down unexpectedly, has anyone checked to see if Lewis Hamilton was in the cockpit, or near any switches? :p

[JoeBob]

Maybe the ground crew in China decided to give a "short fill"

[Cam]

You are assuming they were paying attention or didn't believe E really meant empty.


You mean that 777's don't have idiot lights? :gomer:

[Sean Malone]

You are assuming they were paying attention or didn't believe E really meant empty.

What I don't get is that some witnesses said the engines sounded louder than normal. That suggests to me that they were lower than normal or taking a different route than normal. And that suggests that maybe they knew they were running low on fuel and needed to get on the ground as fast as possible.

Or not

Or for some reason he was full flaps and off his glide scope so he went full throttle to keep it in the air. Once over the runway, kill the throttle the thing drops like a rock.

[Dirk Diggler]

Since the reports say the engines just shut down unexpectedly, has anyone checked to see if Lewis Hamilton was in the cockpit, or near any switches? :p

In my day that was Pulling a Nigel.

[Gnam]

Another close call at Newark

There's a video on the right side of the article. Skip ahead to the :40 sec & 1:35 sec marks to see animations of the two near misses. :eek:

http://wcbstv.com/local/newark.airport.continental.2.632715.html

[TravelGal]

From today's briefing:

The US is sending members of the National Transportation Safety Board to help in the investigation of what caused a British Airways Boeing 777 to make an emergency landing at the last mintue. There are several theories floating around, from a bird ingestion into one or more of the engines and a complete power failure.

It was a Qantas 777 a couple of week ago that experienced a complete power failure and was forced to make an emergency landing on backup power The power failure was caused by a leak in a sink and another leak was found in another plane when all their planes were inspected. A preliminary report is due out within 48 hours but the final report will take much longer.

Heathrow is getting back to normal today although airlines have cancelled about 113 flights for today but their long-haul flights are all operating. The airlines cancelled some 300 flights yesterday and are trying to catch up.

[dando]

More 411:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/18/heathrow.incident/index.html


"At approximately 600ft and two 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."

Initial report linkage:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/18/report.heathrow.pdf

-Kevin

[dando]

From today's briefing:

The US is sending members of the National Transportation Safety Board to help in the investigation of what caused a British Airways Boeing 777 to make an emergency landing at the last mintue. There are several theories floating around, from a bird ingestion into one or more of the engines and a complete power failure.

It was a Qantas 777 a couple of week ago that experienced a complete power failure and was forced to make an emergency landing on backup power The power failure was caused by a leak in a sink and another leak was found in another plane when all their planes were inspected. A preliminary report is due out within 48 hours but the final report will take much longer.

Heathrow is getting back to normal today although airlines have cancelled about 113 flights for today but their long-haul flights are all operating. The airlines cancelled some 300 flights yesterday and are trying to catch up.


Almost ruined Q's perfect safety record. :(

-Kevin

[Gnam]

Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond.
Scotty, I need more power!

I'm giving it all she's got, Captain!

[Andrew Longman]

"At approximately 600ft and two 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."

The report does not explicitly say if the engines were running or not, but it sounds as if they were and just wouldn't throttle up. Makes sense now that thought more about it. No passengers reported that they heard the engines shut down. I know I would notice that. Which also means they didn't run out of fuel.

I assume the throttles are FBW too. On the Quantas flight it sounds as if water shorted it out. This will be interesting.

[TravelGal]

Almost ruined Q's perfect safety record. :(

-Kevin

That perfect safety record all depends upon how you define "perfect" and how you define "safety" They've had a few mishaps they'd rather not think about, along the same lines as the 777 thing.

[TravelGal]

Ya'll know more of the technical stuff but here is the summary with "editorial comment" from the writer of today's briefing: The first report by the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch of last week's crash of a Boeing 777 at Heathrow has been issued. The report stated that the two Rolls-Royce engines did not respond to attempts to increase thrust during the aircraft's decent. The flight and approach to the airport were normal until the aircraft was approximately 600 ft. and 2 miles from touchdown when the engines did not respond to the autothrottle and then manually by the pilot. At this point the pilot had to try and glide the plane in. It was a miracle he was able to get it over housing and the perimeter road that surrounds Heathrow even though he didn't manage to get to the runway. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the plane squelching speculation that the plane ran our of fuel. The agency said it was now focusing on looking at the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation.

[nrc]

A FAULTY alarm is being blamed for failing to alert the British Airways crew that engines were losing power before they crashlanded at Heathrow Airport.http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/newsfeed/2008/01/20/air-scare-caused-by-alarm-blip-78057-20291388/

One thing that's not clear to me - the official reports have said that the engines failed to respond to the request for more power, but other reports have indicated that the engines failed entirely. I'm not sure if that's the case or if that's just how some writers have interpreted it.

[TravelGal]

One thing that's not clear to me - the official reports have said that the engines failed to respond to the request for more power, but other reports have indicated that the engines failed entirely. I'm not sure if that's the case or if that's just how some writers have interpreted it.

I would guess the latter. You know how poorly most racing stuff is written by hacks who don't know better. I doubt they know more about aviation, which means I doubt they know the difference between failed to respond and failed entirely.

[cameraman]

The preliminary report. Mostly what did not happen as opposed to what actually did occur. As to why, well they don't seem to have any idea:saywhat:


During the descent, from Flight level (FL) 400 the aircraft entered the hold at Lamborne at FL110; it remained in the hold for approximately five minutes, during which time it descended to FL90. The aircraft was radar vectored for the ILS approach to Runway 27L at Heathrow and subsequently stabilised on the ILS with the autopilot and autothrottles engaged. At 1,000 ft the aircraft was fully configured for the landing, with the landing gear down and flap 30 selected. The total fuel on board was indicating 10,500 kg, which was distributed almost equally between the left and right main fuel tanks, with a minor imbalance of about 300 kg. The fuel crossfeed valves indicated that they were closed and they had not been operated during the flight. The first officer took control for the landing at a height of approximately 780 ft, in accordance with the briefed procedure, and shortly afterwards the autothrottles commanded an increase in thrust from both engines. The engines initially responded but, at a height of about 720 ft, the thrust of the right engine reduced. Some seven 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. The engines failed to respond to further demands for increased thrust from the autothrottles, and subsequent movement of the thrust levers fully forward by the flight crew. The airspeed reduced as the autopilot attempted to maintain the ILS glide slope and by 200 ft the airspeed had reduced to about 108 kt. The autopilot disconnected at approximately 175 ft, the aircraft descended rapidly and its landing gear made contact with the ground some 1,000 ft short of the paved runway surface just inside the airfield boundary fence. During the impact and short ground roll the nose gear collapsed, the right main landing gear separated from the aircraft and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing. The aircraft came to rest on the paved surface in the undershoot area of Runway 27L. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft after it came to rest, but there was no fire. The cabin crew supervised the emergency evacuation and all occupants left the aircraft via the slides, all of which operated correctly; eight of the passengers received minor injuries and one suffered a broken leg.
Engines
Examination of the engines indicated no evidence of a mechanical defect or ingestion of birds or ice.

Data, downloaded from the Electronic Engine Controllers (EECs) and the QAR, revealed no anomalies with the control system operation. At the point when the right engine began to lose thrust the data indicated that the right engine EEC responded correctly to a reduction in fuel flow to the right engine, followed by a similar response from the left EEC when fuel flow to the left engine diminished. Data also revealed that the fuel metering valves on both engines correctly moved to the fully open position to schedule an increase in fuel flow.

Both fuel metering units were tested and examined, and revealed no pre existing defects. Both engine low pressure fuel filters were clean. The fuel oil heat exchangers (FOHE) in both engines were free of blockage. The right FOHE was clear of any debris, however the left engine FOHE had some small items of debris on its fuel inlet bulkhead. The high pressure filters were clean. The variable stator vane controllers and the fuel burners were examined and found to be satisfactory.

Detailed examination of both the left and right engine high pressure fuel pumps revealed signs of abnormal cavitation on the pressure-side bearings and the outlet ports. This could be indicative of either a restriction in the fuel supply to the pumps or excessive aeration of the fuel. The manufacturer assessed both pumps as still being capable of delivering full fuel flow.
Fuel system
Several fuel samples were taken from the fuel tanks, pipe lines and filter housings prior to the examination of the fuel system and these are currently being examined at specialist laboratories. Initial results confirm that the fuel conforms to Jet A-1 specifications and that there were no signs of contamination or unusual levels of water content. A sump sample taken from the left and right main fuel tanks shortly after the accident revealed no significant quantities of water. Samples from the centre tank had been contaminated by fire fighting foam and hydraulic fluid: this contamination was a consequence of the rupture of the right rear wall of the centre tank.

A detailed examination of the fuel tanks revealed no pre‑existing defects except for a loose union in the left main tank at its inner wall; the union formed part of the centre tank to left main tank fuel scavenge line. Some small items of debris were discovered in the following locations:
1. Right main tank – a red plastic sealant scraper approximately 10 cm x 3 cm under the suction inlet screen.
2. Left main tank, water scavenge inlet - a piece of black plastic tape, approximately 5 cm square; a piece of brown paper of the same size and shape, and a piece of yellow plastic.
3. Right centre tank override pump – a small piece of fabric or paper found in the guillotine valve of the pump housing.
4. Left centre tank water scavenge jet pump – small circular disc, 6 mm in diameter, in the motive flow chamber.
The relevance of this debris is still being considered.

Examination of the fuel surge tanks showed no signs of blockage of the vent scoops and flame arrestors. Neither pressure relief valve had operated; the relief valves were tested and found to be operate normally. The fuel boost pumps, and their associated low pressure switches, were tested and examined and found to be satisfactory. A pressure and suction test of the engine fuel feed manifold, from the fuel boost pumps to the engine, did not reveal any significant defects. Similarly, a visual examination of the fuel feed lines, using a boroscope, did not reveal any defects or restrictions. A test of the fuel quantity processor unit (FQPU) was satisfactory and its non-volatile memory did not reveal any defects stored prior to the accident. A test of the fuel temperature probe, located in the left main fuel tank, was satisfactory.

More here http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/S1-2008%20G-YMMM.pdf

[stroker]

I thought the Gomers who used the 22 long rifle cartridge for a circuit fuse drove a pickup truck?

:D

[cameraman]

They think it was ice crystals in the fuel:saywhat:


"The conditions encountered stood out by virtue of the length of time that the fuel in the main tanks had stayed below 0C, coupled with low fuel flow demands in cruising flight, and high fuel flow demands occurring during the final approach."

Work is continuing to investigate how these factors might influence the build-up and subsequent shedding of ice within the fuel system.

Data from about 141,000 other Boeing 777 flights has thrown up no evidence of similar conditions on previous flights. The only evidence found of any abnormal operation of any of the components was so-called cavitation marks on the high pressure fuel pumps of both engines caused by a restriction in the fuel flow upstream of the pump. There was no evidence of a mechanical obstruction.

As an aircraft climbs into colder atmosphere the temperature of the fuel in its tanks falls. Below 0C, water dissolved in the fuel forms ice crystals suspended in the fuel.

[opinionated ow]

From today's briefing:

The US is sending members of the National Transportation Safety Board to help in the investigation of what caused a British Airways Boeing 777 to make an emergency landing at the last mintue. There are several theories floating around, from a bird ingestion into one or more of the engines and a complete power failure.

It was a Qantas 777 a couple of week ago that experienced a complete power failure and was forced to make an emergency landing on backup power The power failure was caused by a leak in a sink and another leak was found in another plane when all their planes were inspected. A preliminary report is due out within 48 hours but the final report will take much longer.

Heathrow is getting back to normal today although airlines have cancelled about 113 flights for today but their long-haul flights are all operating. The airlines cancelled some 300 flights yesterday and are trying to catch up.

I realise this is ancient, but Qantas doesn't have 777s.

[TravelGal]

I realise this is ancient, but Qantas doesn't have 777s.

Sorry, mate. You're right, of course. Fingers got stuck on 7.

That A380 is coming up pretty quick though.

[opinionated ow]

Sorry, mate. You're right, of course. Fingers got stuck on 7.

That A380 is coming up pretty quick though.
:) Industry rumours coming true would have it a possible machine for those of under consideration for employment.