British Airways 777 crashed at Heathrow

[S V Choong 4]

Aircraft involved in the incident is G-YMMM, a Rolls Royce Trent 800 powered 777-236ER, also the 342th 777s. Reasonably new.

Edited January 18, 2008 by S V Choong

[Irni Mastura 0]

This is the UK Daily Mail we're reading here... fairly typical of them to emphasise sensational news.

 

 

Ahh.... I forgot about the daily tabloids there, hehe...

[Jonathan Kong 0]

From The Sun

 

 

 

 

[Keith T 2]

Hopefully operations will have gone back to normal by tomorrow when I have to fly via LHR to get to FCO.

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Has MH's flights by any means affected?

 

I heard that SQ's flight was diverted, or so i recall.

[Walter Sim 1]

Yeah i heard that too SQ diverted. Anyways just saw a short video of the BA38 approach on tele just now, incredibly high AOA when approach

[Rozhan 0]

Looks lhke the landing gear pierced through the wing! Anyway, it shows that despite all the high technologies incorporated in the B777, it is not invincible.

[Naim 6]

Looks lhke the landing gear pierced through the wing! Anyway, it shows that despite all the high technologies incorporated in the B777, it is not invincible.

 

Yes, it did. A commentator on BBC mentioned this last night.

 

The plane has no wheels and is sitting on 27L. It's gonna take some time before it is moved and making 27L active again. LHR will be disrupted for some time to come, with 50% capacity. Another thing I noticed, no fire. Little fuel left after the long flight from PEK, I suppose.

 

Anyway, from The Mirror ...

 

Heathrow crash plane's engines 'went in reverse'

MIRACLE OF FLIGHT BA038

By Mike Swain, Science Editor 18/01/2008

 

The plane's engines could have switched into reverse as it approached, experts said last night.

 

They are computer controlled to do so "a few feet before the wheels hit the runway", a British Boeing pilot with 25 years' experience said.

 

He added: "Looking at the pictures I can see the engines were in reverse thrust. It's a normal routine auxiliary braking system but if the computer malfunctioned and thought the plane was much lower than it really was, it could have caused this.

 

"The pilot reported loss of power and that's how it would feel - the plane would be trying to push itself backwards. Witnesses reported louder-than-usual engine noise and that's what you get in reverse thrust.

Advertisement

Click here to find out more!

 

"But the systems are almost foolproof and it's difficult to see how it could occur several hundred feet up."

 

Chris Yates, of Jane's Airport Review, said: "If the pilot had a total power failure he would have been able to do nothing but hold up the nose of the plane and pray. With a catastrophic engine shutdown the plane is just gliding at 200mph."

 

Jeff Jupp, of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said: "It looks consistent with a total power failure - except for emergency power for flight controls. Very unusual."

 

Other speculation centred on a bird being sucked into an engine - but the plane should have been able to land on one engine.

 

Investigators will also look at pilot error, gusting side winds and turbulence from a plane in front.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/20...89520-20289275/

[Attan 0]

Reversers activated in flight? Unlikely.

 

More like total power loss, plane glided in missing the top of the perimeter fence, landed hard after stalling a few feet above ground, gear collapsed from the stall, slid on the engine nacellles and belly and stopped short of beginning of runway. With no undercarriage, it couldn't have slid further than that.

[Pieter C. 5]

Hopefully operations will have gone back to normal by tomorrow when I have to fly via LHR to get to FCO.

 

Expect (long) delays, Keith, as only 27R open...

KLC had to cancel the RTM-LHR and EIN-LHR flights this morning due "ATC delays"...

[razlizam 0]

Here's how the Drama Unfolded

 

[Loh Wilson 0]

The plane's engines could have switched into reverse as it approached, experts said last night.

 

They are computer controlled to do so "a few feet before the wheels hit the runway", a British Boeing pilot with 25 years' experience said.

 

It is real that a B777 have an automatic reverse thrust ?

[Walter Sim 1]

Never heard of that .

 

TK, LeeCH please CONFIRM!!!

[Mohd Idham 0]

I am very sad to see an aicraft condition like that...it is not easy to build an airplane...

[Naim 6]

Record of fires on 777 jets

 

Dick Murray and Jonathan Prynn

18.01.08

 

The type of jet involved in the near catastrophe at Heathrow has a history of onboard fires causing power failure.

 

The Standard has learned that Boeing 777s have been involved in at least 12 serious incidents when electrical systems became dangerously overheated during or immediately prior to flights.

 

On at least four occasions this caused "major damage" to power panels containing vital circuits that control the plane.

 

The revelation came as investigators continued their search for the cause of the worst aviation accident at Heathrow for more than 30 years.

 

BA pilot Peter Burkill steered the stricken plane to a safe crash landing yesterday.

 

It is believed he had to guide it into the airport after suffering a massive power loss in the cockpit on the final approach.

 

Today it emerged that the Department for Transport's Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which is carrying out the inquiry, warned about electrical overheating on the 777 in a report published last April.

 

It followed an accident in February when a pilot on a United Airlines 777 abandoned a take-off after it lost one of its main power control units - known as a bus. The plane was evacuated after smoke was seen coming from the plane.

 

An investigation revealed "extensive heat and fire damage" to an electrical panel which had melted and vaporised circuits. The report went on: "There was evidence that molten metal had dripped down onto the insulation blankets beneath this panel."

 

It emerged that similar incidents on 777s had happened 11 times previously since the model was introduced in 1996.

 

The report said the AAIB was working with the US National Transportation Safety Board, Boeing and the manufacturer of the power panel "to try to determine the cause of the failures within the electrical power system".

 

Investigators are expected to reveal their initial findings on the Heathrow accident tomorrow afternoon.

 

Theories include a huge bird strike, bad weather and pilot error as well as other possible causes of electrical failure. However-it is believed that lack of fuel was not a factor. Captain Burkill and his two co-pilots were quizzed for five hours last night by investigators.

 

The crew then went for a curry to "return to normality".

 

Captain Burkill will have been trained to glide a plane into land with double engine failure. However, the reliability of modern jet engines means most pilots will only encounter even a single engine loss a few times in their career.

 

A double simultaneous failure is regarded as an incredibly remote possibility with odds of many millions to one.

 

Jim McAuslan, head of pilots' union Balpa, said: "These are ordinary people who have done an extraordinary thing. They were in good shape considering they had just walked away from death and saved 152 lives.

 

"They were taken away for questioning immediately after the crash and quizzed until the early evening. After that they just went for a curry. They are going about this quietly. These guys are trained month in, month out, to deal with this and that is what they did yesterday.

 

"By going for a curry they were very much trying to come down from the intensity of everything that has happened. It was trying to find some ordinariness."

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...rash/article.do

[Derek Siu 0]

saw the new yesterday and the news paper, the news said" the pilot did a great job of landing it with the engine F @ 600ft " he missed the house nearby and save hundreds of live

[KK Lee 5]

 

AAIB Initial Report (Abstract)

 

Following an uneventful flight from Beijing, China, the aircraft was established on an ILS approach to Runway 27L at London Heathrow. Initially the approach progressed normally, with the Autopilot and Autothrottle engaged, until the aircraft was at a height of approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down. The aircraft then descended rapidly and struck the ground, some 1,000 ft short of the paved runway surface, just inside the airfield boundary fence. The aircraft stopped on the very beginning of the paved surface of Runway 27L. During the short ground roll the right main landing gear separated from the wing and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing root. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire. An emergency evacuation via the slides was supervised by the cabin crew and all occupants left the aircraft, some receiving minor injuries.

 

Examination of the aircraft systems and engines is ongoing.

 

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.

 

The investigation is now focussed on more detailed analysis of the Flight Recorder information, collecting further recorded information from various system modules and examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation.

 

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/acc...tial_report.cfm

 

 

 

 

[BC Tam 2]

The crew then went for a curry to "return to normality"

"Normality" may not be the end result if the curry happened to be a vindaloo !!

 

Anyway, mighty grateful for what must have been divine intervention - to have flown the few thousand miles from Beijing uneventfully, problem only at last couple of miles, and no fatalities Note that the aircraft was 'following the Thames' - hence, if the incident had occured just a bit earlier, the resulting carnage would probably defy imagination

 

That is not to take any credit away from the crew though

 

 

Another snippet of news from the BBC

What happens to a plane wreck? WHO, WHAT, WHY?

The Magazine answers...

 

When the investigations on the Heathrow runway are finished, what will happen to the plane wreckage? There are about 143 tonnes of wrecked Boeing 777 lying on and off the runway at Heathrow Airport. Experts from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) are examining the plane and the data recorders to assess what went wrong. When their interim investigation is finished - probably within the next 24 hours - the clear-up will begin so the runway can open as soon as possible. THE ANSWER It will be removed from the runway and taken away to be broken upThe undamaged components will be sold as sparesAny scrap metal will be disposed of by a specialist As for the wreckage, there's a range of options. The plane is most likely a write-off, say aviation commentators, although some of its fittings could be re-used, they speculate. Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways. "They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service." Break-up Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the aircraft on airbags, he says. The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped. The insurance surveyors will be assessing the damage and making a report, says David Gleave, an independent accident investigator, to decide whether to repair or write it off. "If they scrap it, they will start to look at bits and pieces that they can recover and are of significant value," he says. Horizontal and vertical tail surfaces may not have been damaged and could be kept by Boeing as spare parts. The engines are worth about £10m each, he says, and will probably be sent to an engine repair centre, firstly for accident investigation and then for salvage purposes. The nose cone, weather radar, furnishings and cockpit window could be sold as spare parts if undamaged. "It looks as if all the avionics under the cockpit will be able to be salvaged and all the cockpit instrumentation," says Mr Gleave. "If that can't be sold for spares for operational use it could be sold to a simulator centre who would rebuild the cockpit from there. "There are a lot of parts that could be used again even if they're not put back on to an aeroplane." For instance, a training school could bid for the front section of the fuselage, he says. Planes have been known to return to service after surviving crash landings. In 1999 a Qantas 747 overran the runway at Bangkok in heavy rain and hit a ground radio antennae, but a $100m repair got it back to work. However, the insurer will not allow any components to be re-used unless fully certified and as good as new, says Professor Graham Braithwaite, from Cranfield University, which runs a course in aviation accident investigations. "Seats and furnishing may not be that damaged and may be reusable but airlines will not want customers to feel they are sitting on seats from a crashed plane," he says. "The insurer would be very conscious that it doesn't want these components getting out of a controlled system." Souvenir hunters hoping to pocket a piece of the plane will be disappointed, says Mr Braithwaite. The industry is very strict on provenance and will not want any wreckage to appear on the second-hand market. That means scrap metal from a plane like this cannot just be handed over to a scrap merchant, but has to go to a specialist for disposal. Some aircraft are just too significant to be scrapped, however mangled. Almost 20 years after Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in Scotland, discussions continue about what will happen to fragments of the plane. The fuselage, about 10 metres tall, is currently held at the AAIB headquarters in Farnborough as evidence in the long-running trial. But with the appeal about to be concluded, there are several interested parties including the Glasgow's Museum of Transport. And while the British Airways plane which crash landed on Thursday, is still largely in one piece, "as far as the integrity of the aircraft is concerned," says aviation expert Chris Yates, "this is an aircraft that will never fly again. Essentially it's a great big lump of scrap metal."

 

(sorry, the article ended up all scrambled. Link is here)

Edited January 19, 2008 by BC Tam

[Keith T 2]

Indeed thank goodness no one is seriously hurt in what could've been a catastrophe. Kudos to the actions of the crew involved.

[Fitri Shukri 0]

Nice to know everyone was safe with only a few with minor injury.

 

And report/photo from the passengers themselves?

 

Heathrow fire engines doesn't look as cool as KLIA's.

[Walter Sim 1]

So what if the airport is incompetent.

 

Imagine KLIA one day would be half like Heathrow fuyohh

[Nik H. 3]

British Airways Pilot is big hero in UK.

 

Malaysian Airline Pilot ( my batchmate Capt Norhisham Kassim ) who also saved lives after his B777 Flight Computers went Cuckoo at FL370 and returned to a safe landing in Perth had no such honor. Maybe because its Malaysia Airlines, the favourite whipping boy.

 

Anyway, whatever the case, I hope I will never get to experience what the pilots went through in my flying career. They have earned a lifetime of salary.

 

In the case of the BA accident, I'd really have to wait for the full report to emerge.

 

The immediate puzzling ( but thankful) thing to me is the lack of fire considering that the undercarriage punched right through the fuel tanks. The aircraft should have at least 6 tonnes of fuel on landing.

 

The pilots did very very well, but there must have been divine intervention as well.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Nik H.

[Keith T 2]

Expect (long) delays, Keith, as only 27R open...

 

BA108 LHR-DXB has been cancelled, and I've been rebooked on BA104 which leaves 2 hours later. Still connecting in good time to my onward BA559 LHR-FCO. Nicely pre-assigned seat 10G replaced by 15D in the middle of the cabin - but at least the overall impact is minimal (ie I still get into FCO at the same time).

 

BA lounge in DXB is quite pleasant even though I now have to kill 4 hours here.

 

A letter at the lounge reception explained that the cancellation is due to crew shortage caused by the disruption at LHR.

[Mushrif A 3]

British Airways Pilot is big hero in UK.

 

Malaysian Airline Pilot ( my batchmate Capt Norhisham Kassim ) who also saved lives after his B777 Flight Computers went Cuckoo at FL370 and returned to a safe landing in Perth had no such honor. Maybe because its Malaysia Airlines, the favourite whipping boy.

 

It's the media attention or lack thereof. "Tak kenal maka tak cinta".

 

And btw, to set the record striaght, MH is not whipped for the quality of its pilots...but (deserves to be whipped) for, amongst others, the quality of its ground crew, and in recent times, poor quality food, especially in Y, despite hyping and bragging about some imaginary 5-star services.

 

[Keith T 2]

First hand account of the crash from a pax on BA38:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/...0620210489.html