Another from the sun, wow aren't we just trailing the tabloids today:
I love this theory about WiFi it reminds me of the old "Taxi radios made my car ram the wall" stories that circulated when automotive engine management systems were first introduced. So, that's money well spent on all the Electro-Magnetic Interference Qualification testing then. And with all the electrical noise the engines would be putting out, I'd be less surprised if it didn't change the channel on your TV as it passed over your house!.
I'm a conscientious man... when I throw rocks at seabirds I leave no tern unstoned. (Ogden Nash) Et nom de dieu! C'est triste Orly la dimanche (Jacques Brel)
Goose:Found this story very interesting ......The real kicker, however, is that Boeing 777's have landed at Heathrow hundreds of times with no similar issues, meaning if there is some design flaw in the craft why is it just appearing now?
Interesting? Not really. With incidents like this where the reasons are not obvious there is usually a number of factors which, when combined, give the answer. For example, we could have one (or two) faulty accelerometers feeding data into a flight computer operating program which has not been programmed, or has been programmed incorrectly, to react to a very unique situation. I'd be surprised if the fault in this case was "simply" water contamination.
Goose:and the landing lights are on so no total power loss and i cannot see the Ram Air Turbine deployed?
That Wi-Fi story is nonsense... sorry... ;)
I think it was human error, even if it's hard to believe because of the perfect conditions in this occasion.
I'm a little bit confused about the fuel/water thing...if the fuel supply caused trouble, it should have been noticed however before getting about zero power from *two* engines...
If it would be that common to run into trouble injecting water into the engines, why were they not aware of it? And why had there not been any more incidents like that...
WiFi and fuel are deadends!
Just to correct some of the wonderful inexpert opinion - the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is on the starboard side and deploys automatically with electrical power failure. Similarly the APU auto-starts with the same condition. It is not part of the pilots procedures.
The RAT is very unlikely to fall out with a landing which was not very hard judging by the passengers comments.
The analysis of the engines shows the left engine was running but it appears the right engine was stopped. This is arrived at by examining the fan blade damage. It is likely the gear sheared off due to the mud or possibly impacting the edge of the concrete runway.
It is quite possible that an electro-magnetic pulse could have affected the onboard computer hardware.That is why passengers are required to switch off all electronic equipment until after the aircraft has shut down.
Now how about you wait for the report - like most professionals wish so-called experts like Learmount would do.
Moe:I think it was human error...
Rolls-Royce engines dont fail. BA Pilots are of the highest standard. Heathrow is of the highest standard. 10 Tonnes of fuel is enough for five hours flight. Admit it Seattle. It's down to you.
Has anyone noticed the position of the control surfaces on this picture. Assuming it is in fact BA038 the rudder looks hard over (Rigt hand yaw) and the ailerons appear to be in a left roll config ie crossed controls as indicative of finals either in a X wind landing or a RH engine inoperative.
Is it conceivable that the RH engine had already shut down and the approach was continued and subsequently the LH engine shuts down at 600' AGL and is still windmilling at impact.
If this is the case then, however unlikely, fuel starvation could well be the cause.
Within minutes of the crash there was a "live" eye witness report describing the aircraft approaching at 90° to 27L and performing a steep LH turn at low level, however, this report seems to have disappeared.
Goose:Sorry just backing up the explanation....but the power could have been supplied by the APU, this had been activated through the pilots procedures.....so would have given power to the landing lights....if the aircraft had one engine running this would have given the pilot enough power in the cockpit...the Ram Air Intake was shown in a previous picture as deployed...but this could have happened when the aircraft hit the deck.....
Sorry just backing up the explanation....but the power could have been supplied by the APU, this had been activated through the pilots procedures.....so would have given power to the landing lights....if the aircraft had one engine running this would have given the pilot enough power in the cockpit...the Ram Air Intake was shown in a previous picture as deployed...but this could have happened when the aircraft hit the deck.....
There has been a lot made of the APU running because of the air intake being shown open in the images of the aircraft on the ground, it would appear by the "touchdown" shot that the intake is in fact closed ? Now I'm not a 777 driver but would the vent need to be open for an airborne start of the APU or maybe the impact of the touchdown closed or opened the vent???
I always thought that they tell you to turn stuff off only because they can't tell what stuff you might have, rather than because there was an active risk of interference. I mean, do they turn phones off on bis-jets for takeoff? How about on Air force One?
So, my theory went, it's easier to tell everyone to turn stuff off than to provide a list of authorised and certified electronic devices that are acceptable for use whilst landing. There'll always be some fool that wants to play with his new Electromagnetic pulse generator just before landing..... If the risk of interference was that great, how are they managing to introduce mobile telephone services to aircraft (a thought that still makes my blood run cold).
Having had to put hardware through EMI testing Qual testing, I'd still say it was pretty rigorous and I'm sure I'd have not liked to be sat next to the hardware during the test. But that's just me.
Most likely the 777 ran out of gas - No fuel spill, no fire, no power on both engines, long trip - happens in the best of airlines ie Air Canada over the Azores. Strange there has been no comment on fuel contents.
MikeE:Most likely the 777 ran out of gas - No fuel spill, no fire, no power on both engines, long trip - happens in the best of airlines ie Air Canada over the Azores. Strange there has been no comment on fuel contents.
From the AAIB report "A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire."
The latest AAIB report:
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.
Has the AAIB said anything about the fuel quality?
In relation to current investigations looking at "the complete fuel flow path" I read with interest that there have been a number of loss of thrust control (LOTC) incidents with the 777. There is one major BUT. The incidents have all happened with the GE90 engines. None (as far as I'm aware) involved RR.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/The_BA038_LikelyCause.html
MAybe this piece of advice would have helped the BA land in the right place
http://www.doctors.net.uk/DocStore/DSView/Document.aspx?docid=523736
I've just been reading the latest post on the BBC News website (HERE) and I have to say it is one of the best aviation articles I've read in the "General" press.
It is clear, uses simple language without being simplistic and avoids the temptation of drawing conclusion with too few facts. Well done Tom Symonds; it's really good to read an article that isn't written like "And the pilots, the ones at the front with the big caps, would have known what was happening by the ground getting closer. Although there were no flames, an explosion would have closed London for months."