BA Flight Lands Short Of Runway at London Airport

[Maestro]

Things are getting clearer. And thank you, LaoPo, for staying on the case and updating us with the latest news reports and the findings of investigators.

--

Maestro

[Mosha]

The captain must have been itching to take control, when it was obvious the runway was not an option. A lot of people owe those guys a big thankyou, and not just the folks on the flight. That is the first major failure of a triple 7.

[taxexile]

Air accident investigators have released their first information about the events that led to the crash-landing of BA flight 038 at Heathrow

A final report will be released once a much more extensive inquiry has been carried out.

LOSS OF POWER

An initial assessment from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said that the Boeing 777 failed to respond to demands for extra thrust during its final descent towards Heathrow.

"At approximately 600ft and two miles from touch down, the autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond," the preliminary report said.

"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 lack of thrust meant the speed of the aircraft reduced, and it came down on the grass short of the runway, the report added.

The findings confirm early theories that the pilots were pitched into a struggle to control the crucial final moments of descent. Only hours after the crash, an airport worker had told the BBC that one of the pilots had described how the aircraft "just shut down".

What remains to be revealed is why both engines failed to respond.

A simultaneous failure of the highly-reliable engines seems unthinkable, so investigators will focus their attention on the plane's systems.

The initial report says that "the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation" will now be examined in greater detail. Information from various modules within the plane will be gathered and studied.

The plane's fuel supply, hydraulics, electrical and computer systems are all likely to be examined in this phase.

Theories floated earlier relating to a loss of power also included:

Fuel contamination or starvation - if water got into the system, or some blockage occurred, it would explain loss of power, although not why both engines were hit at the same time

Running out of fuel - although this continues to look unlikely in itself, as the AAIB report says that a "significant amount" of fuel leaked from the aircraft, and in any case that would not explain why no early warning of fuel shortage was apparently given to the crew.

Bird strike - if a flock of geese or other large birds had been hit, the damage could conceivably have been sufficient to knock out or seriously compromise both engines - although the engines are put through rigorous testing to ensure they can withstand this

Wind shear - rapidly-changing winds in very squally conditions can cause planes to stall - but no reports from the area at the time suggest significant wind shear conditions

PILOT ERROR

Key to any investigation is the action of pilots and co-pilots. In some cases, even if they were not responsible for an initial problem, their responses can avert or spark a tragedy.

The picture which has emerged so far from Heathrow suggests that the pilots did a heroic job in getting their stricken plane into the airport grounds and crash-landing without loss of life.

Senior First Officer John Coward was handling the plane at the time, and received warm praise from Captain Peter Burkill for the way the crisis was dealt with.

"We had an outstanding team on board," Capt Burkill said in a brief statement the day after the accident. "I am proud to say every member played their part expertly."

He said everyone had followed procedures as they had been trained to, and that First Officer Coward had done "the most remarkable job".

He added that it was not possible to make any public comment about the circumstances while the investigation was under way.

Air accident investigators will be able to listen to the cockpit conversations between the men, which will have been on one of the plane's two flight recorders. This will help them assess exactly how the crew handled the crisis.

DESIGN FLAW

Until the Heathrow incident, no Boeing 777 had ever crashed, in 10 years of service.

The plane quite simply is seen as one of the most reliable in the world.

Boeing, together with Rolls Royce, which makes the engines, will offer the investigation team any help needed.

From the initial accident report, it appears that the performance of the engines themselves is not in question, but the systems operating them are being closely examined.

The plane involved in the incident is relatively new, at about six years old, and is one of 43 in the BA fleet.

The fact that the plane withstood the crash-landing so well was also key to saving lives.

POOR MAINTENANCE

Some airlines are known to have question marks over their safety records and maintenance standards, but this is highly unlikely to be a factor in an incident involving a major European airline like BA.

An error by an individual technician can never be ruled out, and has sometimes been a key part in a chain of events which brought down a plane, but in this case the fact that the plane had almost completed its long flight from China seems to make it less likely to be a factor.

ATTACK

A major question after any airline crash is whether deliberate attack involving a device on a plane, or sabotage, is a factor. The authorities were quick to make clear there was no indication at Heathrow that any deliberate action was involved.

WEATHERAt the time, weather conditions were favourable and visibility good, although there was a gusty wind which could conceivably have played a role.

Wind shear has been a factor in previous tragedies. If a strong enough gust of wind catches the plane during the critical phase of final descent it can prove catastrophic. But no specific reports suggest conditions at Heathrow were severe enough to trigger this.

GETTING THE FULL PICTURE

The task of investigators from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) will be proving much easier than in many cases, as the flight recorders and wreckage have been easily accessible and not deep under water or damaged by fire.

As well as the recording of cockpit conversations, the inquiry team have accessed the plane's technical data from the second so-called "black box" recorder.

The fact that all crew and passengers survived will also help build up a detailed picture of exactly what happened and over what timescale.

Already it is clear that passengers were given no early warning of a problem with the plane.

Most accidents are caused by a chain of events rather a single catastrophic one, so investigators will be keen to explore all aspects of the incident before reaching their final conclusion.

A fuller report is due to be released within 30 days.

bbc news.

[seonai]

Hi Lao Po and Yorkman etc,

Lao Po did a sterling job at getting this news 'on air' as soon as it happened. Lao Po I only touched your big blue text as we don't tend to support 'shouting' on TV. Didn't touch your words. Just removed Taxexiles 'shouting' too !!! And I believe Lao Po, Yorkman and Dekka all need a huge thanks for their contributions to this thread. Thanks guys... a way interesting read...

[taxexile]

Just removed Taxexiles 'shouting' too

what shouting ??

[enyaw]

...This could have been really bad, thank goodness the pilot landed it where he did

Still better, of course, would have been if he had put the plane down on the runway. He will have a few questions to answer.

Can’t they land these things on autopilot nowadays?

--

Maestro

He actually aimed for the airport Hanger, so top marks for that! - bloody good pilot!

[enyaw]

...This could have been really bad, thank goodness the pilot landed it where he did

Still better, of course, would have been if he had put the plane down on the runway. He will have a few questions to answer.

Can’t they land these things on autopilot nowadays?

--

Maestro

He actually aimed for the airport Hanger, so top marks for that! - bloody good pilot!

That of course was a joke.

[taxexile]

History of power failure

By Ben Farmer and Richard Edwards Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 19/01/2008

Questions over the safety record of the type of plane involved in Thursday's crash landing have been raised after it emerged that the model has suffered power failures from electrical fires.

A report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has disclosed that Boeing 777s were involved in at least 12 incidents where electrical systems have overheated during or before flights. Four of those resulted in overheating which caused "major damage" to power panels involved in controlling the plane.

The details emerged in a report into an incident at Heathrow airport last February in which a flight was abandoned before take-off after the plane lost one of its major power units. Examination of the power panels revealed "extensive heat and fire damage" which had left some parts melted or vaporised.

However, flight experts consider the Boeing 777 to be extremely reliable. Not one has been lost in a crash since it was launched in June 1995.

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that pilots were warned earlier this week of possible engine failures after an investigation into a previous "serious incident" in which a BA Airbus A319 suffered an "extensive loss" of electrical power after leaving Heathrow.A two-year inquiry into the cause proved inconclusive, but the AAIB advised that pilots should receive more rigorous training in flying using only the standby instruments.

Edited January 19, 2008 by taxexile

[lomatopo]

Senior First Officer John Coward was handling the plane at the time, and received warm praise from Captain Peter Burkill for the way the crisis was dealt with.

Sounds like the guy in the right-hand seat should be getting more credit?

[yorkman]

The captain must have been itching to take control, when it was obvious the runway was not an option. A lot of people owe those guys a big thankyou, and not just the folks on the flight. That is the first major failure of a triple 7.

You would think so at first sight, but this was exactly why mandatory Multi Crew Co-operation training was brought in a few years ago. The relationship between the Captain and the First Officer has been the cause of a number of accidents in the past.

In practical terms, they were both flying the aircraft; the Captain it seems was the non handling crew member

@Maestro, yes the aircraft can land on autopilot, in fact systems to do this (autoland) go back many many more years than people realise. The runways at LHR are Category 3 ILS (the safest in simple terms) , so this is often the safest option.

However if, as it seems, the engines failed to respond to a command from the autothrottle subsystem(s) the autopilot(s) would agree between themselves that there was a fault and disengage.

The pilots are also obliged to undertake and log a minimum number of manual landings over a period of time in any case.

So, either way round, the very last bit of that "arrival" was doubtless being flown manually

Edited January 19, 2008 by yorkman

[Mosha]

AFAIK most pilots prefer to land manually and only use the ILS to set the AC up. Usually in a flight the 1st few minutes and the last few minutes are flown by the guys in the cockpit. This gleened from watching quite afew cockpit video cds. Longhaul flights eg LHR-BKK usually have 2 flight crews, one crew for the flight and one for the hard bits.

[yorkman]

AFAIK most pilots prefer to land manually and only use the ILS to set the AC up. Usually in a flight the 1st few minutes and the last few minutes are flown by the guys in the cockpit. This gleened from watching quite afew cockpit video cds

You are mixing things up a bit Mosha

Even if the pilot is manually flying the aircraft, they are following directions derived from the ILS. Aircraft deviation from the optimal path (height or lined up with the runway) is indicated to the flight crew by means of display with "needles" (a carry over from when an analog meter movement would indicate deviation, and in fact still does on a lot of smaller aircraft).

It is certainly not just used to "set the aircraft up", whatever that might be. Did you mean very close to the runway where they transition from instrument to visual flight?

It is a safety issue for one thing; just one example... providing the aircraft stays on the glideslope there will be not be any obstacles, well apart from possibly the birds have been speculated as a possibility for this accident

[dekka007]

The captain must have been itching to take control

Probably not actually. Its often better to let the FO do the flying in an emergency situation such as this - Both pilots (Usually ) have the same flying skills. The skipper can sit back a bit and take in the whole picture and do the talking to the necessary people (Cabin, pax, atc) and necessary checklists.

In the back of your mind you will have assessed the FO ability/experience already.

Most landings are manual unless weather conditions dictate otherwise. I reckon i do 1 autoland for every 20 manually flown. In the situation the 777 found itself in there is no autoland capability - the pilots needed to stretchvthe glide manually which was well handled but always a risky procedure.

Edited January 19, 2008 by dekka007

[GuestHouse]

Some things we do know.

The pilot/co-pilot managed to put the plane which had no engine power down in a 'safe' location.

The cabin crew executed an aircraft evacuation with only three minor injuries.

The ground safety services responded immediately fire/ambulance and runway safety crews all doing a great job.

Nobody fled the scene.

As I've always argued, its not how pretty the trolly dollies are, its not even how servile the cabin crew are when things are going right.

Its how the team perform when things go wrong that matters.

As others have often said - "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing" - by that measure we have a 'Crash that everyone walked away from'.

Let's find out what caused this crash - but also ask yourself how many airlines train their staff so well?

[MrSquigle]

I think 1,2 Go are trying to currently get their hands on BA's training vids.

[yorkman]

but also ask yourself how many airlines train their staff so well?

Most do GH. There are some rogues, or small airlines that do not have/attract the best staff of course.

All the major airlines train to the highest standards. Even if it was not in their best interests to do so, the national aviation authorities enforce it.

[sibeymai]

From Taxexiles earlier post (#63)..."Bird strike - if a flock of geese or other large birds had been hit, the damage could conceivably have been sufficient to knock out or seriously compromise both engines - although the engines are put through rigorous testing to ensure they can withstand this"

Er, "withstand" in what way ? I don't know of any engine of this type which still works after a bird strike. Maybe "withstand" means "it won't fall off the wing".

Certainly the pilot(s) did a great job. But with so little time to touchdown just what could they do ? Obviously bring the plane to maximum glide (lowest airspeed above stall as others have said ?) and attitude to maintain speed above stall. But what else might they have done ? Bring the gear up ? Change the wing config ? Was there time to do any of these things ? What does the manual say ?

I assume that the pilot in control would focus on the flying for maximum glide. Would the other pilot have been doing other things or crossing his fingers and praying ?

Edit Out: "I don't know of any engine of this type which still works after a bird strike."

Replace with: I wasn't aware that engines of this type could still function after a bird strike.

Edited January 19, 2008 by sibeymai

[apetley]

If you want to see what a birdstrike looks like.

[Tywais]

Replace with: I wasn't aware that engines of this type could still function after a bird strike.

Birdstrike.org - Myths & Facts

[Mosha]

If it does come down to burnt out wiring, will they do a Concorde and ground them? Or will business requirements come first?

[yorkman]

If it does come down to burnt out wiring, will they do a Concorde and ground them? Or will business requirements come first?

A very good question.

In an ideal world yes. Given the numbers in service, the financial losses to the industry and the huge amount of disruption to air travel that would ensue make it impossible in practice.

Given the very good safety record of the 777, the most likely scenario is that an Airworthiness Directive would be issued that must be complied with within a certain period of time/ at the next check or whatever.

The AD is the modifications to be made

[sibeymai]

Replace with: I wasn't aware that engines of this type could still function after a bird strike.

Birdstrike.org - Myths & Facts

Thanks for the link Tywais. An interesting read, especially the list of incidents.

It seems then that engines often fail as a result of damage from bird strikes, but in some cases the damaged engine remains operable.

[dekka007]

in some cases the damaged engine remains operable

I've had a fair few in my time conversation usually goes like this:

Skipper:" <Sniff> Was that you?"

FO: "<Sniff> Nope...Smells like chicken"

Skipper:"Yup - Check it on the ground"

I would say 9/10 the engine will continue to run with a single NORMAL / SMALL sized bird which goes to show the very high quality of engineering involed in a modern high bypass fan engine. Makes a mess of the paint work tho

Edited January 20, 2008 by dekka007

[LaoPo]

Recovery team moves crashed jet

The British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow is being moved from the southern runway.

The crashed plane is set to be moved to a hangar

The operation to move the plane will take a number of hours

Engineers described it as a "delicate" operation to place the 200-tonne jet on wheeled platforms to be taken to a hangar 500m away.

Accident investigators will continue with their examination of the plane and are expected to report back in 30 days.

All 136 passengers and 16 crew on the BA flight from Beijing survived after the crash-landing on Thursday.

Bruce Hunter, general manager of BA Operational Maintenance, said it would take hours to complete the removal of the aeroplane.

Continues here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/7198732.stm

BA pilot 'feared all would die'

The co-pilot of the British Airways jet that crash-landed at Heathrow feared everyone on board was going to die before he steered the plane to safety.

Senior First Officer John Coward told the Sunday Mirror he believed there was going to be a "catastrophic crash".

"As we landed I was bracing myself for an enormous thud" Senior First Officer John Coward

But he said he was only doing his job when he managed to land the stricken Boeing 777 safely just inside the airport's perimeter fence on Thursday.

The plane will be moved to a hangar on the eastern side of the airport later.

The wreckage of flight BA038 will be placed on three electronically controlled wheeled platforms so it can be transported 500 metres to BA's airline's engineering base, where investigators will continue with their examination.

'Shuddered to a halt'

Continues here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/7198598.stm

LaoPo

[yorkman]

It seems then that engines often fail as a result of damage from bird strikes, but in some cases the damaged engine remains operable.

Well the authorities requires that all engine types used for larger GA passenger aircraft pass a test which used to include throwing a (dead ) chicken, now a gelatin block, into a running jet engine. The engine does not have to remain functional after the test, but it must not cause significant damage to the rest of the aircraft i.e. start throwing blades off at high speed.

Bird strikes are very common, but they usually affect the smaller aircraft more adversely, as would be expected.

It seems it is not a factor in this incident, not surprisingly; the chances of it happening with both engines on very short finals, particularly as LHR does as much as it can to keep flocks of birds away, are infinitesmal.

[Maestro]

Crash-landed jet's fuel supply 'not shut off properly'

Sam Jones and agencies

guardian.co.uk,

Monday February 18 2008

Workers inspect the British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA

The crew of the British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow last month did not shut off the jet's fuel supply system properly, a preliminary report into the accident found today.

The report said the error could have had "serious consequences" had there been a fire.

Although the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said the mistake did not cause the crash, it recommended that Boeing 777 operators make sure fuel supplies are disconnected in the correct sequence.

The report found the crew's actions "resulted in the loss of fuel from the aircraft", adding: "This was not causal to the accident, but could have had serious consequences in the event of a fire during the evacuation."

Examination of the plane's engines found "no evidence of a mechanical defect or ingestion of birds or ice".

Investigators are now concentrating on the damage they found to the plane's high pressure fuel pumps.

The AAIB said its examinations would include the "modelling of fuel flows taking account of the environmental and aerodynamic effects".

The report - the AAIB's third into the accident - said data from the flight recording systems indicated that there were "no anomalies in the major aircraft systems"

It went on: "The autopilot and the autothrottle systems behaved correctly, and the engine control systems were providing the correct commands prior to, during and after the reduction in thrust".

Samples were taken from the fuel tanks, and initial results showed that there were "no signs of contamination or unusual levels of water content".

Some small items of debris were found in the fuel tanks and the relevance of these was "still being considered".

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/18/transport

--

Maestro

[LaoPo]

That's being LUCKY in an UNLUCKY crash.......

LaoPo

[Crossy]

I know it's like comparing apples with oranges, but contrast the volumes of information coming out of the AAIB regarding this non-fatal crash with the (non) information coming from the Thai authorities regarding the very fatal Phuket One2Go crash which it seems they are hoping will be forgotten.

Someone needs to take lessons from the AAIB and NTSB.

[Crossy]

More recent info http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...sh-landing.html and here http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/sp..._er__g_ymmm.cfm

Edited March 21, 2008 by Crossy