BA 777 shortfield landing at Heathrow

[Doc]

What's a "crash landing", you ask? Most of mine.

[Splatm]

This was a good landing, everyone walked away.
Of course it is a great landing only if it doesn't close the runway or the plane can fly again in less than 24 hours.

[backon3]

I have it on first hand knowledge that it was wake turbulence from a stealth bomber.

[iwannasoar]

,

I'm calling the 500 hour F/O got behind the power curve and hammered the throttles to save it and its 100% pilot error, .

As one of the few people on here that is typed on the "21" I find your quote quite laughable!

[old metal]

They were having a heated discussion about warm beer, its obvious isn't it? (glad everyone is okay)

[Rockie]

Every time an accident occurs, the armchair experts are speculating on AvCanada before the wreckage has stopped skidding. Invariably, when the facts are known, going back and reading these posts makes those engaged in this mindless exercise look pretty ignorant. Of course, those people don't go back to the archived posts, the are too busy cooking up wild eyed ideas about the current incident of the day.

Re: the hole in the RH side of the aft fuselage. Explosive exit hole - bomb perhaps as one suggested? O'h an entry hole- must be one of the Al Quaida missles.

FYI, the B777 lands with the cabin pressurised at -300' msl. for structural reasons. Normally this pressurisation ids slowly bled off during taxi in. In the event of an emergency evacuation, it is blown off. The round hole is the cabin overpressure vent valve open. Anybody else want to look at some tiny part of the aircraft that they know nothing about and speculate about the cause of the accident?

Also FYI: Remember the Seneca that hit the building in YVR a number of months ago. The AvCanada pundits said pilot incompetance, mis-handled engine failure, fuel exhaustion because there was no fire, yadda yadda yadda. Turns out to be a case of a simple heart attack around liftoff.

Lets just be thankful that no one was hurt in this accident, wait for the facts, and then try and learn from them. Doing anything else just makes us look like idiots to any of the public browsing the forum. Just my $0.02

Boy, you just made yourself look stupid. Here's a direct quote from the B-777 manual;

During descent, cabin altitude decreases to slightly below the FMC planned landing altitude. This ensures that the airplane lands pressurized. Landing altitude barometric pressure correction comes from the captain’s altimeter setting.

At touchdown, both outflow valves open to depressurize the cabin.

Now I've never been on a 777, but I've also never seen a positive pressure relief valve beside a passengers knee before either.

Everybody indulges in some guesswork as to what happened, but if you're going to get insulting about everybody else's ignorance you should check your own facts first.

[Bubbaganoosh]

Rule number 1

Never believe a god damned thing the media says. I doubt at this point, the Captain even has all the details as to what actually happened.

Probably firewalled the crap out of every stinking lever he could reach, was that sort of like a cf farnborough landing or what

[ScudRunner]

As one of the few people on here that is typed on the "21" I find your quote quite laughable!

Ok but im calling Pilot Error. What goods a crash that everyone walked off if you can't come up with a theory on why it went down. If i'm right Miles O'brian and I will be talking via satalite on CNN! If I'm wrong me and Bill Oreilly will be calling each other douche bags and cutting each others mikes off on Fox!

[pic777]

So far I read 1 plausible reply....the one about the pap on 34a.
Having flown the 777 for 3 yrs now, I have no speculations.
A couple of ideas, yes, but not to be posted on the internet, since there seem to be enough qualified specialists with great insight that are posting.
I do know how tough it is at times to do the approach after a long flight and lack of sleep or build up fatigue.
Then to have all hell break loose just when you think you are almost safely home.....
As I posted on PP: I am very glad for the pilots to hear there are no fatalities; as events will be going through their head again and again, they won't have the extra burden of loss of lives and the emotional impact of that.

[C-FABH]

I have it on first hand knowledge that it was wake turbulence from a stealth bomber.

Here I thought I was the only one..

[Rockie]

As one of the few people on here that is typed on the "21" I find your quote quite laughable!

Ok but im calling Pilot Error. What goods a crash that everyone walked off if you can't come up with a theory on why it went down. If i'm right Miles O'brian and I will be talking via satalite on CNN! If I'm wrong me and Bill Oreilly will be calling each other douche bags and cutting each others mikes off on Fox!

What's a "21"? I thought this was a B-777.

[neophyte]

How do they know the geese were Canadian? "Blame Canada"

Haters!!!

[CID]

Seems you know Jack Sh!t about airplanes, mister. Sure it's possible, but if you thought about it, but there's plenty of other reasons that are far more likely than that. If the pilot knew he was short on fuel he'd have declared a fuel emergency plenty earlier and landed far sooner.

What is far more likely is a problem with electrical power, which then caused perhaps fuel pumps to stop, and so a loss of engine power, and if you don't think that can happen, then search on the Quantas flight that had just that very recently, though the engines stayed running.

Tsk tsk. Loss of electrical power is an extremely unlikely (I'd say impossible) cause of both engines failing. The ECU has it's own engine driven electrical supply independant of the main electrical system and engine driven fuel pumps.

[Hedley]

You don't suppose that on a long flight, they could
perhaps have simply run out of fuel? Naw, that's
'way too complicated, and could never happen.

But I seem to recall Air Transat having a double engine
failure and gliding to the Azores ...

And even the vaunted Air Canada once had a double
engine failure and landed at a Gimli drag strip.

But perhaps my memory is simply faulty.

[THEICEMAN]

But I seem to recall Air Transat having a double engine
failure and gliding to the Azores ...

You can't compare the Transat incident with this one. They knew prior to fuel exhaustion, that there was a problem.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the BA crew have noticed that they were short on fuel?

Apparently they also lost all their electricals? The 777 may be out of my league, but could it be a problem with the FADEC? Maybe the FADEC went Kaput & shut down the engines?? Just an assumtption.....

[Hedley]

[C-FABH]

Some rather amazing photos here: http://www.heathrowpictures.com/pictures/pictures.html

[cywg_sw4]

Perhaps a problem with the engine control units/fly-by-wire computers? Aren't those engines FADEC-controlled?

A central fault somewhere may have screwed something up.

[bob sacamano]

Ran out of fuel?

Must have been keystone pilots crewing that flight...

[rd1331]

I still think it was a kid in the back with his laptop and joystick, maybe they where testing the 787 software package, and someone flushed the toilet.

BTW I like the 787.

BTW Don't like keystone, i think thats the best bet yet bob. Maybe keystone does there dispatching and fuel ordering.

[invertedattitude]

Ran out of fuel?

Must have been keystone pilots crewing that flight...

wtf are you talking about?

[pilotbzh]

Looks like the thrust levers not able to send information to FADEC, engine idle, not able to power up on final (auto thrust and direct input)after extending gear and flaps now that would get you down....sucks to have 2 good engine but unable to spool them up.

[MichaelP]

I have it on first hand knowledge that it was wake turbulence from a stealth bomber.

1. Heathrow would have had the Stealth Bomber on its Radar... British radar tracked the stealth bomber all the way to Farnborough one year.
Unlike Bush, I'm not a believer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 196962.stm

2. "Ran out of fuel"

"The report noted that: "A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire."

I think they should introduce 4.5 to 6 degree glide paths for 777's until they find the problem... A glide approach is always better isn't it, perhaps we should teach airline pilots glide approaches
Then there's slipping turns, curved approaches and other fun things...

[bob sacamano]

Ran out of fuel?

Must have been keystone pilots crewing that flight...

wtf are you talking about?

Did I hurt your feelings?

[invertedattitude]

Well you're insulting the pilots for running out of fuel, when it's already been stated the aircraft had plenty of fuel on-board.

We don't 100% know what happened, but initial reports are suggesting some sort mecanical malfunction, something at 500-600 feet on approach might be somewhat difficult to troubleshoot.