BA 777 crash at Heathrow

I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics on
final.


"Blueskies" wrote in message
et...
What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
could have been an issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...inplane17.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ridge wrote:

I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics on
final.

Confirmed on that. The Beeb, The Age, the SMH, and others are
now reporting the same.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHkBSNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAh10AKCq8dux20K7Pnjpvv6eYy 1zQwXAgACg17mE
eD3HSNLGv7B/aIfTZ+ehVtw=
=E5aE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

wrote in
:

Best guess yet. I hadn't thought of that, but it's a distinct
possibility. A loss of one engine would not be that big an issue at
that stage of the flight, even with full flaps out, but a reverser
deployment woud make a ot of sense from what I've heard about the
accident. Thee are a LOT of safeties on the reversers, but it has
happened to airplanes in the past.

Bertie

What happens to pilots of flights that end like this if somebody on
the flight deck engaged the reversers prematurely?


Well, it wouldn't have been because they selected reverse if that's what
happened. They couldn't if they wanted to anyway. The airplane must be on
the ground to enable reverse. You wouldn't have your hand anywhere near the
levers anyway. If it happened it would be down to some sort of problem with
the airplane. bit it's early days yet anyway.

There was that Lauda air business back in the 90s, I recall. Reverse
thruster(s) deployed in flight. Nobody made it.

Yeah, that's right. 767, I think. Different flight situation. the reverser
kicked off events, but it was mach induced problems that killed them. It's
one of the thngs I would fear the most. We do it in the sim but i onder how
well it woudl all work on the day..


Bertie

"Ridge" wrote in
:


I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics
on final.

Well, the news, ya know?

If they lost both engines they would have lost a lot of electrics unless
they had the APU runnning, which they would not have done most likely.


Bertie

James Robinson wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote:

"Blueskies" wrote:

What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
could have been an issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...291_apbritainp
lane17.html

Regardless of the cause the outcome was positive.

... except for the airplane.

True, but my comment meant (even though I was not clear) that no
people were killed.

Ron Lee

Ron,

and offset from runway center line.


How so? The first skid marks are right on the extended centerline.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2008-01-18, Blueskies wrote:
What the heck happened? Fuel starvation?

They've already ruled that out (or at least, they've ruled out fuel
_exhaustion_).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Bob Furtaw schrieb:

I'm betting on wind shear or microburst...or he was told "land and hold
short" Bob F.

Bet accepted. How much?

On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya wrote:
Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.

A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
wheelbarrow one of those.

The only eyewitness statements that I'd rely on at this point is that it
came over the boundary fence very low, and that it crashed. A private
pilot waiting in the car park said he saw it banked at 45 degrees. I
have a hard time believing it was banked that far over - the passengers
would have said something, and the outcome would have been quite
different.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Jan 18, 1:37 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya wrote:

Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.

A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
wheelbarrow one of those.


But this wasn't a normal landing. The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
power. My Q is that once it was known that power was off, shouldn't
the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster? As it
transpired, it came down some 300 meters from the runway edge.

Wheelbarrowing is just not on, I'd imagine. If there was that much
airspeed, why'd he crash-land short in the first place?


From the sunny Isle of Man.

Sunny in mid-Jan?

Ramapriya