BUFF 8 Posted January 17, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/p...wm=1&bbwm=1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 17, 2008 Glad that everyone made it out ok, even with the few minor injuries. Hard landing? Storm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted January 17, 2008 Any landing from which you can walk away... Just a bit short... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 17, 2008 thank God every one survived Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jarhead1 27 Posted January 17, 2008 Thats definitely good that all survived Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUFF 8 Posted January 17, 2008 current rumour is that all power & electrics failed & the crew glided it in ... waiting for real facts though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jarhead1 27 Posted January 17, 2008 Yikes, that must of been fun, NOT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jimbib 747 Posted January 17, 2008 My brother works very close to where the 777 crashed, as it went by one of his colleagues thought it looked too low, a second later, wham, tail strike as the aircraft flared too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruggbutt 45 Posted January 17, 2008 My dad is supposed to be flying out of Phoenix into Heathrow this afternoon. Since I'm his taxi to the airport we're all on a standby of sorts to see if 1) how long his flight is going to be delayed 2) if his flight will be arriving at all. Thankfully no one was hurt, I heard they got everyone out quickly and that it was a short landing, put it in the grass before the runway. My dad spoke to someone at Heathrow, he said he understood that flights might be late because of a crash. She said there was no crash, it was a "landing incident". He had to tell her that having been a pilot for 30 years that any time you scrape the landing gear off the plane it's a crash. ;) Gotta love the politically correct explanations............ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brainless 1 Posted January 17, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/p...wm=1&bbwm=1 I've been viewing the crashed airplane on TV this afternoon. Seems like the pilot at least lost an engine on approach. I reckon the crew did a wonderful job making the landing in what must have been terrifying conditions but we all wait to hear the actual causes of this. Incredible events and thank god no-one was hurt bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tank03 1 Posted January 17, 2008 As everyone has pointed out... thank God there were no serious injuries. And from what little I've heard so far, kudos to the crew for handling the situation so well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted January 17, 2008 Man... All the way from China, just to drop short like that... Only a few hundred feet closer and it wouldn't have been issue... Low and slow with one engine suddenly out has got to be terrifying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUFF 8 Posted January 18, 2008 from the AAIB initial report "Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally until the aircraft was established on late finals for Runway 27L. At approximately 600 ft and 2 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." btw it was the copilot who landed the aircraft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted January 18, 2008 The co-pilot? What was the pilot doing, having a cup of tea? Well, no matter, it was a great landing! It could have been tragic... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Fates 63 Posted January 18, 2008 Accidents cause MAJOR structural damage....incidents do not. It was BOTH engines MajorLee... It appears that there may have been a computer/electrical glitch. Evidently the software isn't BUG free. The Co-pilot is now a highly paid Beta-Tester....LOL Fates Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+drdoyo 2 Posted January 19, 2008 (edited) The co-pilot? What was the pilot doing, having a cup of tea? Well, no matter, it was a great landing! It could have been tragic... It's common practice with most airlines that the Captain will fly one leg, and the First Officer will fly the next, or in some way split the day's flying between them. While one is flying, the other is working the radios, and keeping up with other enroute tasks. Here's food for thought. I logged 2000 hours in the Be-1900D. In my last couple of months on the Be-1900 before transitioning to the EMB-120, I had more time in the airplane than some of the Captains I was flying with, and more time in the airplane than a couple of them had total time :yes:. Just because someone is in the right seat, doesnt mean they aren't experianced. Edited January 19, 2008 by drdoyo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 19, 2008 Landing with auto-throttle? Man...no thanks! pK=1 and I will do the throttle, thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 19, 2008 Actually, in most modern airliners, it's really better to have the auto throttles on. Autothrottles tend to do as good or better job with speed adjustments. Modern high bypass engines have long engine response times due to the rotating mass. In addition, autothrottles engaged will enable safety features (such as auto throttle up if a stall condition is encountered, etc). Also, unlike low bypass engines that have hard stops, modern high bypass engine limits are determined based on temp, PA, etc. Unless you want to be fiddling with the engine limits on a go-around, it's better to just hit the TOGA lever and let the engines wind up safely on their own. Otherwise a rash action (other than for something like windshear or GPWS alerts) will cause a overpressure, damage to the engine and possibly the pylon. Finally, Cat III approaches (zero visibility) require the use of the autothrottles. And at any time, you can override either with a button toggle and/or direct manipulation of the throttles. FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 19, 2008 Since you put it that way...but I still like being in control, if I wanted a machine to tell me how fast I could go, I would drive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 19, 2008 The aircraft even with autothrottles only flies at the speed you tell it to...not the other way around. Period. FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rambler 1-1 9 Posted January 20, 2008 just a shot in the dark from a know-nothing, but sounds like it ran out of gas, generators went offline, not enough time to get the EPU going. Or maybe generator was on one engine, that engine sucked in a bird. Or a LSA. Good thing everybody got off, and I agree, the pilot should get a medal as big as a frying pan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brainless 1 Posted January 20, 2008 just a shot in the dark from a know-nothing, but sounds like it ran out of gas, generators went offline, not enough time to get the EPU going. Or maybe generator was on one engine, that engine sucked in a bird. Or a LSA. Good thing everybody got off, and I agree, the pilot should get a medal as big as a frying pan. From one know-nothing to another. I think it may transpire that it was none of these things but something surprising. We'll just have to wait and see. More likely fuel contamination for both engines to fail at once I would think or a computer glich. I do hope it is nothing in the general construction otherwise god forbid there could be more crashes. Does'nt bear thinking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 20, 2008 Folks, quick clairification...the initial report doesn't say the engines failed...it says the engines failed to respond to a throttle up command. In other words, the engines were running, but not at enough thrust to maintain the specified approach speed. This was after autothrottles and manual throttles both failed to make the engines respond. This was not an engine flameout, this was something else. What bothers me is this sounds an awful lot like the first A320 accident. This is only at first glance though... FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+allenjb42 4,240 Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) Anyone fancy a conspiracy theory? Mr Brown (the British prime Minister) expressed his relief that the passengers and crew were not harmed in the accident, which happened as he was arriving at the airport to board a flight to China. Coincidence? Maybe this was supposed to happen on the return leg to Bejing? Edited January 21, 2008 by allenjb42 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+drdoyo 2 Posted January 21, 2008 What bothers me is this sounds an awful lot like the first A320 accident. This is only at first glance though... FastCargo You mean the Airbus that went into the trees at Farnborough? That is a scarey thought. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
