Pilot gave no warning before Boeing 777 crash, reports say

[Torch]

Pilots who know British Airways and the Boeing 777 tell Flight International, flightglobal.com's print edition that they believe that whatever happened to reduce the engine power occurred in the last three minutes, possibly even the last two minutes, of the flight.

Given the task of diagnosing the cause in order to maintain power and simultaneously keeping the aircraft clear of stalling speed as power reduced, the crew did well to select accurately the best touchdown point they could achieve and put the aircraft down, still under control, with wings level and a rate of descent that prevented serious damage.

Heathrow tower controllers believed the aircraft's nose-high attitude on approach indicated it was about to go around, but shortly after one of the controllers voiced that opinion, the crew declared an emergency.

Among many theories as to the reason for a simultaneous failure of both engines after a long, uneventful flight, fuel contamination appears to come out top in the probabilities list. The theory pilots propose is that although fuel was plentiful, a heavier-than-fuel contaminant, such as water, represented a minute proportion of the fuel in the tanks on the approach, so problems did not arise.

During the flight, the fuel was cold-soaked and any contaminant could have frozen to crystalline or solid form. Then, in the bumpy approach at lower levels, as the fuel warmed, the melting contaminant began to circulate in the relatively small amount of fuel remaining, forming a slush that could impede the fuel flow to the engines. This is only a pilot theory and there is no positive evidence for it from any official source.

Pilots do not rule out the double-engine birdstrike theory, but the photographs do not appear to show bird remains on fanblades, engine intakes, wing leading edges or nose.

[Royzee617]

One year on and investigators still have no answers to Boeing 777 incident


By Murdo MacLeod
ACCIDENT investigators are still probing a previous incident involving a Boeing 777 at Heathrow, which took place almost a year before Thursday's crash-landing.
A team from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is probing a fire in the electrical system of a United Airlines Boeing 777 which stopped the plane taking off last February.

The wreckage of flight BA038 is expected to be removed from the southern runway at Heathrow Airport this morning.

The British Airways Boeing 777 crash-landed after its engines failed on Thursday afternoon – with all 136 passengers and 16 crew escaping from the flight from Beijing.

Senior first officer John Coward, under the command of Captain Peter Burkill, averted disaster by landing the craft just within Heathrow's boundary fence following the malfunction.

In last year's incident, the flight-deck instrument displays flickered, and the crew heard an "abnormal noise" and smelled electrical burning. Smoke was seen to be coming out of the aircraft.

When investigators checked the plane, they found evidence of heat damage and fire in the electrical system of the aircraft.

In an interim report published in April, the investigators said that they needed to continue their probe in order to study how the fire spread. Their probe is ongoing.

Iain Findlay, an aviation consultant, said: "This could be significant, although it's very early to say one way or the other. The fact is that the Boeing 777 has a very good safety record."

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said that airlines would not ground all their 777s unless it became clear that the fault which caused the crash-landing on Thursday might be present in other planes.

An Air France source said that their experts were studying the information coming from the Heathrow probe, but that it was too early to say whether their 777s would be grounded. Air France operates more than 40 of the aircraft.

Crash investigators are due to move the 209ft, 142,900kg plane today and continue their research into the incident from the eastern BA hangars at Heathrow Airport.

The AAIB's preliminary report into Thursday's incident – which left 18 of the 136 passengers needing treatment, including one with a broken leg – is due out in 30 days.

The body said its investigation was now focused 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".

The decision to move the plane followed a day of normal services at Heathrow, with the British Airports Authority reporting a "modest" 38 cancellations.

The airport was thrown into chaos after
the crash-landing, with 221 flights immediately cancelled. A BAA spokeswoman said: "There have been a modest number of cancellations but operations have returned to normal.

"There are no temporary marquees up; all passengers can resume normal procedures for checking in. British Airways had 21 cancellations in place this morning, including arrivals and departures, but the total at the airport increased to 38 cancellations in all. These were mostly short-haul flights cancelled due to the knock-on effect of the incident."

British Airways said it had fully restored its long-haul schedule and had 95% of its short-haul flights running as normal.

The AAIB produced their initial report shortly after Burkill made a brief statement, praising his colleagues and revealing Coward, with whom he had shared a curry the night after the crash, had been the handling pilot as the plane descended.

The full article contains 597 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Last Updated: 19 January 2008 8:12 PM

[Royzee617]

No I am not a conspiracy theorist.... I just like to air my thoughts.

Yes, you are right speculation is not on when no facts have been issued. But I find that for such an exceptional occurence on our own doorstep so to speak it interesting to do so. Nice to see what others think.

Torch's entries look intriguing.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Torch

During the flight, the fuel was cold-soaked and any contaminant could have frozen to crystalline or solid form. Then, in the bumpy approach at lower levels, as the fuel warmed, the melting contaminant began to circulate in the relatively small amount of fuel remaining, forming a slush that could impede the fuel flow to the engines. This is only a pilot theory and there is no positive evidence for it from any official source..

Rubbish...

The so called melting contaminant would of had to pass through a series of filters. There also this stuff that is used in most turbine fuels.

Hi-Flash Product Information

[Matt308]

Yeah not likely.

There have been similarly catastrophic situations that seems just as unlikely to occur. Like the 767 that ran out of fuel and landed at a drag strip in Alberta (if I recall correctly). Fuel quantity indication system was inop. Pilot measured fuel using dipsticks. Calculated fuel in lbs vice kgs on dipsticks. Ran both engines dry inflight. Dead sticked to an old Canadian Airforce strip that was being used as a dragstrip. Made a perfect landing. Except forgot to lower the gear. Oops.

And a 777 incident where all primary and backup displays were blanked due to a software failure. Had to revert to steam guages. And it was only at the insistence of Boeing flight test pilots that the analog guages were retained, since the FAA did not require them as the PFDs/MFDs met the regulatory safety requirements alone.

So these types of stories do exist. I'm not a mechanical systems engineer, but I would love to see the cross-feed valves and their failure modes. Sure seems strange that this failure mode would have been overlooked.

[pbfoot]

The 767 Matt is talking about was calle the "Gimli Glider" he did drop the gear but the nose wheel collapsed

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was on a 767 in Stuttgart that did that. On take off the nose wheel collapsed. I have pics of it unfortunatly this was before Digital so I have to dig them out of a box and scan them.

[Royzee617]

I see the media have cracked open that old EMI chestnut with tales of WiFi interference.... durh.

My money's still on dirty fuel. Doesn't matter how good the plane is if the fuel's no good.

[plan_D]

I was under the impression that it was a computer failure; the ILS demanded throttle twice without reply and then the pilot demanded with reply. This doesn't indicate to me that the engines have failed through fuel contamination or lack of fuel. The 777 has a record of computer glitches, none of them have been reported before now because all those involved have made it down safely.

[Parmigiano]

The last I read today was that the electronic problem that caused the engine cut was due to an active cell phone on the aircraft, whose EM emissions have tilted the computers.

Seems BS to me...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Parmigiano

The last I read today was that the electronic problem that caused the engine cut was due to an active cell phone on the aircraft, whose EM emissions have tilted the computers.

Seems BS to me...

Yep - definetly BS.

No way cell phone EMs are going to cause an airliner's computers to fail.

[plastic]

Just a thought gentlemen. Regarding the question of grounding triple 7's because of one accident and the, seemingly accepted lack of need to do so.
Anyone remember Concord??
One accident and that was the end of it, overreaction?
An impeccable record for many years, it was the worlds only supersonic mass transport airliner, one accident and the whole fleet is dead, why?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plastic

Just a thought gentlemen. Regarding the question of grounding triple 7's because of one accident and the, seemingly accepted lack of need to do so.
Anyone remember Concord??
One accident and that was the end of it, overreaction?
An impeccable record for many years, it was the worlds only supersonic mass transport airliner, one accident and the whole fleet is dead, why?

The Concord fleet was initially grounded pending investigation and then was cleared to fly once again.

I think what ultimately grounded the Concord was it's age, the novelty was gone and it was a financial white elephant to operate, let alone the flak it got from environmentalists. Sad but true...

[bigZ]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The Concord fleet was initially grounded pending investigation and then was cleared to fly once again.

I think what ultimately grounded the Concord was it's age, the novelty was gone and it was a financial white elephant to operate, let alone the flak it got from environmentalists. Sad but true...

Some good points but in the main I think it was because the French couldn't make it profitable to operate and were looking for an easy way out.

[plan_D]

The Concorde was abandoned because the French couldn't make it profitable and they couldn't afford to lose face. The French government put pressure on the British to abandon the Concorde alongside them, but British Airways were making money off the Concorde through business deals. The Concorde was an excellent selling point for business contracts.

For example:

If one company sells 100 flights for £80,000 and then British Airways says 100 flights for £80,000 and every fourth flight is on the Concorde - then the contract goes to BA.

That's how it worked but France couldn't catch on to that and put pressure on the [wishy-washy] British government to force BA to abandon it. Much respect for Richard Branson who announced he'd buy the 40 year old aircraft for twice what BA paid for it, which was £1 when BA was privatised.

Ridding the world of Concorde was a step back in technology; it proved the viability of a supersonic airliner that would be even easier to achieve today.