Tamizi Hj Tamby 1 Report post Posted January 19, 2008 What a shocking news! It's the 1st 777 crash,am i right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter Sim 1 Report post Posted January 19, 2008 yeah, probably first Hull Lost for the 777.. Anyways cranes and airbags are in place now, the plane is getting moved!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irni Mastura 0 Report post Posted January 19, 2008 First hand account of the crash from a pax on BA38: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/...0620210489.html Wow... surreal. He is very, very lucky man indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith T 2 Report post Posted January 20, 2008 (edited) An update: Virtually 99% of flights out of LHR were delayed. My 1905 departure to FCO was retimed to 2020, and again to 2050. We didnt get our slot to commence push back until 2115. Finally got into my hotel after 0100!! Apparently theyd started moving the 777 away from the runway so the delays should ease over the next days. Thankfully im flying via LGW for a while for the next few flights. I really pity the poor lounge staff, most of whom are a pleasant lot, who had to deal with LOTS of ANGRY pax. At one point a BA duty manager was summoned to calm a really irate fella down. I can only imagine what staff in the terminal are having to deal with. Thankfully Id arranged to meet up with a member of Aust Freq Flyer who was QF emerald and hence brought me into the F lounge which was nicer than the J lounge - had a champagne bar which made the delay much easier to sit through. TR to be updated as soon as feasible. Edited January 20, 2008 by Keith T Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nik H. 3 Report post Posted January 20, 2008 Credit must be given to Mwingers for the disciplined way postings in this thread has progressed. There is almost total absence of speculative nonsense as to the reasons contributing to the crash. As for me, I'm still waiting to know how much fuel the plane had on board upon touchdown as there is no fire despite the MLG punching through the wings. I'd expect not less than 7.5 tonnes. There are lots of factual details about the flight, ie engines not responding, great Alpha flow flying by the pilots, weather report, pax accounts but nothing about fuel remaining. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted January 20, 2008 As for me, I'm still waiting to know how much fuel the plane had on board upon touchdown as there is no fire despite the MLG punching through the wings. I'd expect not less than 7.5 tonnes. Yup, I mentioned the lack of fire in an earlier post too. I thot it was due to almost empty tanks, but if you say 7.5t, then that's not little. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mohd Yohan 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2008 so long for the 777 record ....thank god everyone survived...... Not looking good looks like a W/O damage. Did the aircraft crashland on the grass ad enter the runway or did it landed from the other side and have the 180 drift??? Azuddin was wondering about the same q when I first read this.... Landed few hundred yards before the runway, just after the perimeter and approach lights. Stop exactly at the runway... Weather seems to be ruled out at the moment, might be power loss from engines? thanks for the explanation........thats like 50meters of grass runway can it be caused by a birdstrike any latest reports? so the huge bird has already been removed from the runway i assume.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted January 21, 2008 From The Times January 21, 2008 Computer failure ‘most likely’ cause of accident Alexi Mostrous Computer failure emerged yesterday as the most likely cause of flight BA038’s crash-landing, as its wreckage was removed from the southern runway at Heathrow Airport. British Airways technical staff believe that the Boeing aircraft’s computerised control system caused both engines to fail during its final descent towards Heathrow on Thursday. All 136 passengers and 16 crew survived. The aircraft was just two miles from touchdown and at a height of 600ft when it lost power suddenly. John Coward, the Senior First Officer, averted disaster by landing the craft just within Heathrow’s fence. Experts said that a simultaneous mechanical failure of both engines was “unthinkable”. They suggested the fault must lie in the computer system that controlled the engines. “There are separate autothrottles, a left computer and a right computer . . . everything is split,” a former 777 pilot said. “For both engines to fail at the same time it has got to have been commanded.” The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is examining all possibilities and has downloaded full data from the flight recorders. Its initial report made clear that it would focus on “the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation”. Computer malfunction in 2005 almost caused a Malaysia Airlines 777 to stall, by slowing its airspeed from 270 knots to 158 knots and putting it into a 3,000ft climb. The pilot prevented disaster by disconnecting the autopilot and pushing the nose down. Another glitch last year caused a 777 to lurch to the right over the Atlantic. The captain had to quickly disengage the autopilot. As BA’s stricken aircraft was moved to a hangar yesterday, other hypotheses were being aired. One was that a “bird strike” had shut down both engines. The impact of large birds hitting the fans inside the engine can cause damage, but no witnesses noted seeing flocks of birds near by. Another theory is that water got into the fuel. The preliminary report from the AAIB into the incident is expected to be released in 30 days. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle3221901.ece And in true Daily Mail style ... Peter Mckay The scary truth behind hero pilots 23:01pm 20th January 2008 Peter Mckay Like heiress Jemima Khan, who says she looked up air crash websites on the internet following a hijack scare aboard a flight she was on, most of us are fascinated by dramas involving aeroplanes. The crash landing of British Airways flight BA038 at Heathrow had everything, including a happy ending. Yesterday's papers carried reams about the plucky co-pilot, John Coward, 41, who thought they were all going to die. And what about the George Clooney-lookalike captain, Peter Burkill, 43? What a card! According to The News Of The World, Burkill once had chocolate licked from his naked body by cabin crew ladies during a "total sex-fest" while flying for now-defunct British Caledonian 16 years ago. But what really went wrong with flight BA038? Some electrical malfunction is said to have shut down the Boeing 777's engines less than 40 seconds from touchdown. Heroes? John Coward with Peter Burkhill and a crew member Co-pilot Coward wrestled with the controls in time-honoured fashion so that the airliner skipped over the airport's perimeter fence and flopped onto the grass. As is usual on such occasions, we were reminded that a disaster was averted by the courage of the crew. Imagine if the plane had landed in a busy, suburban street? The pilot's efforts to avoid such a fate are always described as heroically unselfish, as if landing on a crowded street would always be safer, from their point of view, than descending onto open ground, or an airport. But, as former 777 pilot Nancy Novaes told The Sunday Times yesterday: "Most pilots really only have to think about themselves. They are in the front. They are the first on the scene. If they take care of themselves, everybody behind them is safe." Yet British Airways was quick to exploit the heroism angle. Chief executive Willie Walsh, who hasn't had a easy time of it at BA, paraded Burkill and Coward at a congratulatory press conference, although neither was allowed to answer any questions about the flight. BA's story line was simple: highly professional BA pilots saved their plane. So, always fly BA. The real story was that the plane had lost power and the crew didn't appear to know why. Such mysteries concern air travellers more than heroics. The Boeing 777 is a "fly-by-wire" jetliner. Its flying controls are activated by computer. In this case, the computer seems to have shut down the engines and refused to re-light them. And there was nothing the pilots could do about it. Scary! But if this is so, why did the Air 17 Accidents Investigation Branch say there was no need to ground Boeing 777s, of which BA has 43? This suggests the AAIB know what caused the plane to lose power, and are confident it won't happen again. If they do, why haven't they let on to us about it? There are no mysteries in computers-It's our relationship with them that is sometimes mysterious. If BA038's computer decided to shut down its engines, it won't have been because it came to some perverse decision all by itself. It will have been its interpretation of human instructions. What is known as "a software anomaly". HAL, the spaceship- controlling computer in Stanley Kubrick's movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, accustomed us to the idea that such electronics might have a life of their own but that's nonsense. With computers it's "rubbish in, rubbish out". As for airlines, doesn't flying for British Caledonian sound fun? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...n_author_id=227 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Izanee 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2008 (edited) yes, the MAS 777 pilots were never really praised for their excellent handling. anyways, going back to BA038 - there must have been divine intervention as Capt Nik said that prevented the plane from exploding cos of the leaked fuel. still hoping that BA will announce a return to KUL. it will be nice to see a BA 744/772 again! in my opinion its a waste to send a terminator flight to SIN without coming to KUL. let's see what our dinosaurs in MAHB can come up with. Edited January 21, 2008 by Izanee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nik H. 3 Report post Posted January 22, 2008 yes, the MAS 777 pilots were never really praised for their excellent handling. anyways, going back to BA038 - there must have been divine intervention as Capt Nik said that prevented the plane from exploding cos of the leaked fuel. still hoping that BA will announce a return to KUL. it will be nice to see a BA 744/772 again! in my opinion its a waste to send a terminator flight to SIN without coming to KUL. let's see what our dinosaurs in MAHB can come up with. It was quite a bit a more than just a stall threat actually, and the Pilots did a good job of regaining control despite getting mixed signals from the primary signals. In this case I can safely say that the MH PR machine could have done a better job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simon 3 Report post Posted January 22, 2008 Coward is the hero Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gavin Andrew David 6 Report post Posted January 22, 2008 Oh dear , 2nm , 600ft , all engines lost .. yikes .. RAT saved the day .... Slightly below the glideslope though at 2nm if 600ft ... must've been takin it visual Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter Sim 1 Report post Posted January 22, 2008 If you guys watch the final approach video, the 777's nose angle damn high man Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted January 22, 2008 still hoping that BA will announce a return to KUL. it will be nice to see a BA 744/772 again! in my opinion its a waste to send a terminator flight to SIN without coming to KUL. let's see what our dinosaurs in MAHB can come up with. Thought BA had already announced their intention of returning to KLIA a while ago? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted January 25, 2008 Accident to a Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM, on 17 January 2008 - Initial Report Update Accident to a Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM, on 17 January 2008 at 1243 hrs Initial Report Update 23 January 2008 Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) 1st Preliminary Report on Friday 18 January 2008 at 1700 hrs, work has continued on all fronts to identify why neither engine responded to throttle lever inputs during the final approach. The 150 tonne aircraft was moved from the threshold of Runway 27L to an airport apron on Sunday evening, allowing the airport to return to normal operations. The AAIB, sensitive to the needs of the industry including Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Airways and other Boeing 777 operators and crews, is issuing this update to provide such further factual information as is now available. As previously reported, whilst the aircraft was stabilised on an ILS approach with the autopilot engaged, the autothrust system commanded an increase in thrust from both engines. The engines both initially responded but after about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced. Some eight 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. Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust. All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and continued lack of response of the engines to throttle lever inputs are being examined, in close cooperation with Boeing, Rolls Royce and British Airways. This work includes a detailed analysis and examination of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine fuel nozzles. Further factual information will be released as and when available. http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/acc...port_update.cfm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter Sim 1 Report post Posted January 25, 2008 Software glitch? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naim 6 Report post Posted January 25, 2008 Software glitch? Software is always easy to blame. However complicated something looks at face value, most likely it boils down to a chain of simple human errors (as shown in many episodes of Air Crash Investigation). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ignatius 4 Report post Posted January 25, 2008 You never know cyberterrorism has taken placed onboard?? Maybe somesort of virus?? You can say its foolproof but again you never know..Lets just hope it was'nt what I've just mentioned, scarry!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yusoff 1 Report post Posted January 25, 2008 Software glitch or computer glitch? which? ahaa... Cant the pilot disengage the AP once he detected the abnormality? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Loh Wilson 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2008 Software glitch or computer glitch? which? ahaa... Cant the pilot disengage the AP once he detected the abnormality? According to the initial investigation, the engines doesn't respond to the throttle level's input. I believe that is why the pilot can't perform a go-around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lawrence L 0 Report post Posted January 25, 2008 Please tell me that Boeing 777 is not using a windows.. hehe.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Y. J. Foo 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2008 Please tell me that Boeing 777 is not using a windows.. hehe.. Sure it does...here's what happened on G-YMMM on that fateful day... :lol: Seriously, talking about software glitches, isn't that the cause of one of MH's T7 had to do emergency landing at Perth some time ago? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yusoff 1 Report post Posted January 26, 2008 *Whoop! Whoop!* *Pull up! Pull up!* FO: What to pull up??!!! Cap: Damn! Where's the Ctrl-Alt-Del button when we need them!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Desmond C 0 Report post Posted January 26, 2008 Horrible! Terrible! & Vegetable! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nik H. 3 Report post Posted January 26, 2008 Horrible! Terrible! & Vegetable! I used to call Airbus 330 the Scarebus 330. Now I call my Triple 7 the Cripple 7. He he. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
