PDA

View Full Version : BA 777 crash heathrow......any videos of plane coming down??



salthill
01-18-2008, 10:32 AM
Hi

haven't seen any postings of videos any1 got one?

cheers

salthill
01-18-2008, 10:32 AM
Hi

haven't seen any postings of videos any1 got one?

cheers

Bartman.
01-18-2008, 06:41 PM
You tube in a week or so for sure .

Bartman .

b2spirita
01-19-2008, 04:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hixz2_-chk

looks like a remakable job by the copilot, who was the one landing the plane, according to the bbc.

Insuber
01-19-2008, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b2spirita:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hixz2_-chk

looks like a remakable job by the copilot, who was the one landing the plane, according to the bbc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just can't imagine the terror of the passengers. All their life should have past before their eyes in those few seconds ...

Insuber

Bremspropeller
01-19-2008, 07:28 AM
According to a passenger, they just realized they weren't doing a normal landing when the slides were deployed.

mmitch10
01-19-2008, 07:28 AM
The new reports seem to say the passengers weren't aware of a problem. One lady thought it was just a slightly heavier landing than usual!

VonKlugermon
01-19-2008, 09:46 AM
This will be an interesting investigation. I've heard early reports of "both engines failing", which is extremely unlikely unless someone, i.e. the pilots, or something, i.e. software, messed up. Boeing's probably going nuts about now!

Willy

Blood_Splat
01-19-2008, 09:57 AM
Garbage in Garbage out hehe. Who knows yet though.

Gibbage1
01-19-2008, 12:43 PM
The pilots are saying that at 1st, the auto-throttle landing system was failing to apply thrust. When the co-pilot took over, the throttles for both engines did not respond and was stuck in a low power position. To low to make the runway. This was at 2 miles out and 600ft in the air.

It sounds like a software issue. I remember a long time ago the ALS system of a Boing plundged an aircraft into a forest at an airshow, killing all those inside because it would not relinquish throttle control to the pilot. The pilot had to punch in a brake number to cancel the auto-landing sequence, but it was too late. Im sure they developed a better way of braking the ALS, but this could stem from the software just not giving the pilot controle of the aircraft.

A good reason why software should not be landing our passenger aircraft, I would say.

Waldo.Pepper
01-19-2008, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I remember a long time ago the ALS system of a Boing plundged an aircraft into a forest at an airshow, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry there Gib but it was an Airbus. (Memory is a funny thing sometimes.) FWIW I too think the leading culprit is software, or something silly the flight crew did that is soooo small or soooo simple no one had thought it possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU

Blottogg
01-19-2008, 02:08 PM
My first thought hearing about this crash was a fuel problem. An Air Canada 767 was mis-fueled several years ago (metric to English conversion problems contributing) resulting in a dead-stick landing on an airstrip converted into a drag-strip. The lack of any apparent post-crash fire at Heathrow would at least initially support a fuel starvation theory as well. The emergency crews no doubt responded quickly, but had there been significant fuel remaining, I would think that the main gear collapse would have caused any remaining fuel in the wing tanks to escape. If it wasn't a fuel starvation problem, then that would mean there wasn't a fuel leak (unlikely) or that there wasn't an ignition source close enough to start a fire (only slightly more likely, and very lucky.)

Not that I'm discounting an auto-throttle problem, either. I too remember the A320 crash, which was just one incident in a series that lead me to suspect Airbus autopilots to this day. The 777 is Boeing's first FBW aircraft IIRC, though I don't know if the throttles are throttle-by-wire as well. Boeing's automation philosophy in the past has been to make the autopilot easily overrideable by the pilots (move the yoke past a certain small limit, and the autopilot disengages), but I don't know if that philosophy was carried over to the 777. Any current pilots or maintainers here who can shed a little more light on this?

Finally, an excellent job by the flight crew. To lose all power at that phase of flight, and still put it down in control, on extended centerline, while missing the perimeter road, traffic and approach lights was a job well done. The gear collapsed, but given the soft turf they had to put it down on, I think that the collapse was inevitable, regardless of crew actions. Barring any revelations about crew related engine buffoonery, I say 'well done'.

Bremspropeller
01-19-2008, 02:33 PM
In fact, the A320 crash at Habsheim, France, was pilot error.
In landing cofiguration, the a/c will assume, the pilot wants to land if it's once brought below a certain altitude.
The pilot failed to monitor his alt and flew at 30ft instead of 300ft.

Going around would be as easy as pulling the stick fully aft to activate the a/c's alpha floor protection.
The engines would then spool up to TOGA and he could keep the alpha at it's max value, safely climbing away.

That's the official version.

All but three people survived that accident.

MB_Avro_UK
01-19-2008, 02:48 PM
Hi all,

There will be an investigative economic conflict between British Airways, Boeing and Rolls Royce.

None wants to be seen as the cause of the accident.

Boeing and Rolls Royce would prefer that the crash was due to pilot error.

The good thing is that all survived and the 'black boxes' are intact along with the aircraft.

Let's hope that a speedy and objective conclusion is reached by the AAIB asap.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Jagdgeschwader2
01-19-2008, 02:51 PM
One passenger's account seems to indicate that the engines were at full thrust. I would imagine that the pilots could have overrode the auto-throttle at that point though. We will find out soon enough what the cause was. Thankfully all turned out well for the passengers and crew.

Antonio De Crescenzo, 52, from Naples in Italy, said there was little warning that the plane was in difficulty.

'Quite terrifying'

He said: "We were coming in to land but the plane felt like it should have been taking off. The engines were roaring and then we landed and it was just banging.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7195298.stm

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader245.jpg

Gibbage1
01-19-2008, 03:05 PM
The odd thing is that yes, there is 1 passanger that says the engine's throttled, but so many others said it felt like nothing was wrong and it was just a normal landing, till the gear collapsed. Normally, if a pilot gooses the throttle just before landing, everyone notices. Its quite startling since everyone is rather nervous during a landing.

There are currently only a few things clear. #1, the aircraft was rather short of the runway.

#2, most passengers didnt notice anything wrong with the landing. The engines screaming to life suddenly, or quitting on landing would be noticeable by every passenger.

#3, the pilots claimed to have had no engine response. Nothing about lack of fuel or the engines quitting, just that they would not throttle up at the most critical time of approach.

We will all need to wait and see what happens. Everything else till then is just arm chair pilot assumptions.

MB_Avro_UK
01-19-2008, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The odd thing is that yes, there is 1 passanger that says the engine's throttled, but so many others said it felt like nothing was wrong and it was just a normal landing, till the gear collapsed. Normally, if a pilot gooses the throttle just before landing, everyone notices. Its quite startling since everyone is rather nervous during a landing.

There are currently only a few things clear. #1, the aircraft was rather short of the runway.

#2, most passengers didnt notice anything wrong with the landing. The engines screaming to life suddenly, or quitting on landing would be noticeable by every passenger.

#3, the pilots claimed to have had no engine response. Nothing about lack of fuel or the engines quitting, just that they would not throttle up at the most critical time of approach.

We will all need to wait and see what happens. Everything else till then is just arm chair pilot assumptions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point Gibbage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

'arm chair pilot assumptions'

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

SeaFireLIV
01-19-2008, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by salthill:
Hi

haven't seen any postings of videos any1 got one?

cheers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess i`m the only one who feels that this request just doesn`t seem right?

Blottogg
01-19-2008, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
In fact, the A320 crash at Habsheim, France, was pilot error.
In landing cofiguration, the a/c will assume, the pilot wants to land if it's once brought below a certain altitude.
The pilot failed to monitor his alt and flew at 30ft instead of 300ft.

Going around would be as easy as pulling the stick fully aft to activate the a/c's alpha floor protection.
The engines would then spool up to TOGA and he could keep the alpha at it's max value, safely climbing away.

That's the official version.

All but three people survived that accident. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brems, this is why I sometimes wonder if any of the flight control guys at Airbus are pilots. Some of the assumptions in the autopilot software are about as intuitive as quantum physics. Did they never think of the possibility of a low-altitude go-around? The proverbial "busload of nuns" on the runway in the flare is a pretty standard simulator EP, and runway incursions are becoming a major safety concern as other hazards become better understood and avoided. To command takeoff thrust by pulling back on the stick without touching the throttles, even while the autopilot isn't engaged, seems very counter-intuitive.

My favorite "what were they thinking?" autopilot incident with Airbus involved a decent into Nancy France IIRC. The approach is apparently very steep, so the crew selected partial flaps and idle thrust (autopilot off). The limiting speed for the selected flap configuration was 195 knots, but in the steep decent, they hit 196. The logic programmed into the autopilot called for it to prevent a flap overspeed by commanding nose-up pitch. The autopilot apparently works via trim, so the plane started trimming itself nose-up. The pilots, wanting to decend, instinctively pushed forward. This continiued until they couldn't overcome the trim forces (the flight controls are apparently designed such that trim has more pitch authority than the elevator... another "what were they thinking?") and the nose came up. Now the airspeed started decaying, so the autopilot logic again kicked in and applied takeoff thrust (perhaps the same feature you mentioned). So the crew is sitting there thinking "WTH?", with the stick full forward, throttles at idle, while the aircraft climbs with full nose-up trim and takeoff thrust! Bad on them for their poor systems knowledge, but bad on Airbus for such an unintuitive design. Boeing's answer to avoid a flap over-speed is to have the flaps "blow up", or retract automatically, to remain within their speed restrictions.

I'm not trying to turn this into a "Boeing vs. Airbus" thread. They both build very good aircraft, but there are some differences. Boeings cockpit configurations are apparently much less standardized than Airbus' for example, leading to higher training costs. I'm assuming that like most crashes, this one will be a chain of events, not a single cause. I'll be very interested to see how this investigation shakes out.

P.S. Not to discount the eyewitness reports, but to answer the question of what the engines were doing just prior to the crash, I'd wait for the FDR data. The engines may also have their own data recording capability, which would be helpful. Layman eyewitnesses often misinterpet things outside of their experience, and even expert crew can misinterpet what it actually was that they experienced (in the one investigation I initally ran the pilot thought he got out "a little low... about 1500' AGL" When we got the HUD tape from the wreckage, it showed the camera shake from the ejection at only 150' AGL). One possibility is that the report of "engines roaring" could have been the gear or the tail dragging on the soft ground short of the runway (though the video didn't show anything resembling a tail-skid drag mark on initial viewing.) Eyewitness accounts are useful, but have to be taken in full context.

Bremspropeller
01-19-2008, 06:03 PM
Yeah, "teh Airbus" is a chapter on it's own concerning FBW-logic.
There was one major accident where an A320 CFITed, because the crew had "Vertical Speed" mode selected instead of the "Flight Path" mode.
When they put in the figures "33" (for 3.3?), the computer established a sink-rate of 3,300fps and they flew into a mountain-slope.

Google for "Air Inter Flight 148"

I'm not too experienced in the Airbus' modes, but I know from some "'Bus drivers" that you get used to it.
But flying an Airbus is much more managing the whole system as such, than flying the a/c.

leitmotiv
01-19-2008, 06:27 PM
If it happened as the captain said, Mr Coward, his co-pilot, did a remarkable job of flying! What perplexes me is that an eyewitness, a pilot, for all it's worth, saw the landing. He said he saw the 777 bank sharply at the last moment because it appeared the pilot was trying to keep a powerless aircraft lined up for the runway. Strangely, none of the passenger accounts I've seen mentioned this radical maneuver. The vagaries of eye-witness accounts! At any rate, the triple seven had the famed luck of three sevens.

Waldo.Pepper
01-19-2008, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the triple seven had the famed luck of three sevens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was genius. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif A well turned phrase. It is a pity you didn't write that for a media outlet.

VF-17_BOOM
01-20-2008, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

There will be an investigative economic conflict between British Airways, Boeing and Rolls Royce.

None wants to be seen as the cause of the accident.

Boeing and Rolls Royce would prefer that the crash was due to pilot error.

The good thing is that all survived and the 'black boxes' are intact along with the aircraft.

Let's hope that a speedy and objective conclusion is reached by the AAIB asap.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MB Avro,When I saw your post I said to myself,Wait a minute I was on a 777 at a window seat and distinctly remember a Pratt @ Whitney stamp on one of those HUGE engines,I looked it up and it seems the 777 uses 3 different types of engines Manufacturers.

Engines
maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney 4077
77,000 lb

Rolls-Royce Trent 877
76,000 lb

General Electric GE90-77B
77,000 lb
Pratt & Whitney 4090
90,000 lb

Rolls-Royce Trent 895
93,400 lb

General Electric 90-94B
93,700 lb

I'm sure British Airways went with RR.

Bremspropeller
01-20-2008, 07:22 AM
Yeah, it's quite common to have several engine-options for your a/c.

Some a/c, hoever, don't.
That puts an enormous risk onto the whole programme.
The L-1011 tristar almost got cancelled in it's very last stage because Roll-Royce had very serious problems with it's <STRIKE>524</STRIKE> 211 engine.

The whole Tristar-programme was delayed and Lockheed did not deliver enough Tristars to break-even.
Economically, the Tristar was a disaster, from an engineering standpoint, it was at least 10 years ahead of it's time.

mortoma
01-20-2008, 09:40 AM
Could not be the fault of the engine manufacturer, no matter what. Whether P&W or Rolls Royce!! Both engine were said to have failed at once so that points to a systemic failure of the engine throttle controls or fuel deleivery system. The throttle/fuel delivery system is somewhat computerized and also linked to the autopilot, due to the auto-throttle system. It also could be non-computerized parts of the throttle/fuel delivery system. But the possibility of both engines failing at exactly the same time is pure nonsense. It's clearly not the engines themselves that are to blame here.

Personally, I think it will turn out to be the autopilot system. Most pilots of big jets use the autopilot quite a lot in just about all phases of flight these days.

Waldo.Pepper
01-20-2008, 02:41 PM
Some further food for thought. And the first link mentions footage. I have seen a snippet of some footage taken with a cell phone camera. And this may be what is being referred to. Also the first link has some pictures of the engine fan blades which are somewhat telling.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/18/220935/...-crash-evidence.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/18/220935/pictures-ba-boeing-777-heathrow-crash-evidence.html)

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathr...__initial_report.cfm (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_repor t.cfm)

salthill
01-23-2008, 02:26 PM
Ok lots of interest in this tnx. but is there any footage of the plane crashing??

not too morbid as there weren't any serious injuries

cheers

Mysticpuma2003
01-24-2008, 01:05 AM
I think the reason that there is no footage at the moment is that it was just a normal landing until it was so close to the runway.

The pilots didn't call a distress (as far as I know), therefore any plane enthusiasts in the public gallery wouldn't have heard anything over the wavelengths, which would have made them point a camera in that direction.

There were some stills in "The Sun" newspaper showing the plane on approach, and then hitting the deck, with sparks and under-carriage breaking, although the impact point was obscured by a fence along the road, running next to the runway.

Lastly, I am sure there will be some CCTV footage on the security cameras at the airport, but Britain being Britain, this will probably never see the light of day, other than in a closed enquiry, and never be released.

That's the synic in me I'm afraid!

Cheers, MP.

Mysticpuma2003
01-24-2008, 02:46 AM
This is the image they used:

http://www.aqzm71.dsl.pipex.com/impact.jpg

Sergio_101
01-24-2008, 03:01 AM
Ok, I'll state the obvious.
Gas turbine engines on the most modern aircraft
like the 777 will like likely out last the airframe.
One failing for a engine fault is like
your chances of hitting the powerball lottery.

Two failing?

Hint, it ain't the engines fault.

Sorry, not even a flock of birds could stop them in an instant.

The most likely cause is in the cockpit or the
"throttle" controls.

Hate to say it, but pilot(s) error is on top
of the list.

Even if you have fuel starvation you never loose
two engines simultaniously, there will be a time lag.

I'll venture a guess that it will be
that the condition levers were moved to cutoff inadvertently.
Accidental shutdown.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry, not even a flock of birds could stop them in an instant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

History proves you wrong.

Takes a lot of birds and also a rather heavy kind of bird, however.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'll venture a guess that it will be
that the condition levers were moved to cutoff inadvertently.
Accidental shutdown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite unlikely as you have to pull them outwards in order to move them.

MB_Avro_UK
01-24-2008, 04:39 PM
Hi all,

The latest thory from the AAIB is that it was a fuel problem. Contamination or waxing at high altitude.

My father was a BA Captain and as he said to me recently, everyone wants to blame the pilot first.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Sergio_101
01-24-2008, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry, not even a flock of birds could stop them in an instant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

History proves you wrong.

Takes a lot of birds and also a rather heavy kind of bird, however.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'll venture a guess that it will be
that the condition levers were moved to cutoff inadvertently.
Accidental shutdown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite unlikely as you have to pull them outwards in order to move them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When a human was sucked into a engine at DFW
last year(?) the engine did not stop on it's own.
It had to be shut down!

The poor sap was completely consumed.

I am well aware of how the condition levers work, I used to work on jet aircraft of several types.

I can not remember a specific incident but I remember one KC-135 where it was thought to be accidental shut down.

We lost a C-130 one time due to air in the fuel manifold.
Crew error on that one.
All four engines shut down simutaniously.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When a human was sucked into a engine at DFW
last year(?) the engine did not stop on it's own.
It had to be shut down! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but the guy got sukked in - he did not hit the fan at several hundred mph.

Was that the guy who got ingested by the 737?
Have seen pics of it. Only a few fabrics of his overall and some bloody pieces of flesh could be recognized in the whole intake-area.
But: he probably only went through the bypass duct and thus didn't damage the core-engine too much.


There was an accident a few years back, where an E-3 (or was it a KC-135?) ingested a few wild geese after take-off - it crashed. All four engines gone off-line after the geese hit.

Sergio_101
01-25-2008, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When a human was sucked into a engine at DFW
last year(?) the engine did not stop on it's own.
It had to be shut down! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but the guy got sukked in - he did not hit the fan at several hundred mph.

Was that the guy who got ingested by the 737?
Have seen pics of it. Only a few fabrics of his overall and some bloody pieces of flesh could be recognized in the whole intake-area.
But: he probably only went through the bypass duct and thus didn't damage the core-engine too much.


There was an accident a few years back, where an E-3 (or was it a KC-135?) ingested a few wild geese after take-off - it crashed. All four engines gone off-line after the geese hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am scouring the incident reports that are available to us in the public.
As I remember a KC-135 had a problem and crashed killing everyone.
It was suspected that a pilot caged the wrong engine(s).
On every aircraft I have worked on the condition levers
were lifted and pulled back to the cutoff position
for a normal shutdown.
On a C-141 that is also how you used the thrust reversers.....but on the throttles.

Cockpit confusion can be lethal.

Some time in the early 1970s a C-130 crashed at AAFB Guam
for a similar problem.
The crew picked up a few PAN-AM Stewardesses
ant took them up for a joy ride.
They were TAC jocks fresh out of Vietnam on the way home.

On takeoff they did an "assault takeoff" and climbed
at a high angle of attack.
An engine abruptly failed, a cobbed turbine as I remember the story.
One of the flight crew, likely the co-pilot
seeing the fire warning pulled the wrong T handle
resulting in the feathering and shutting down of the wrong engine on the same wing....

You guys know the rest of the story before I type it.....

The aircraft, with two dead engines on the same wing, one windmilling and burning
bounced off the runway a couple of times and dropped off the cliff at the northeast
end of the runway.
About 700 feet straight down, ad I mean they were not flying anymore, they went straight in.
The wreck is still there, I have seen it.

And, yes, it burned so completely that only the engines, a few propeller bits
and some steel odds and ends remain.

There were no survivors.

Sergio

whiteladder
01-25-2008, 09:41 AM
If anybodies interested the AAIB said this yesterday:

"The trouble started two miles out at 600 feet, as the plane was slowing down in its landing configuration.When the automatic throttle demanded more power, the engines initially responded. Then first the right engine, followed eight seconds later by the left, powered down - to a level below the thrust needed."

the AAIB has said "the autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected", suggesting no failure of a data link between the automatic systems and the engines."

Instead the investigators specifically mention the plane's fuel system.

Sergio_101
01-26-2008, 12:21 AM
That information, and the lack of a post crash
fire suggest OOG as the probible cause.

OOG is a very bad thing in avaition.....
It means a quick trip down ;-)

Out Of Gas.......

Sergio

Blottogg
01-26-2008, 03:34 AM
Sergio, my first thought was fuel starvation due to empty tanks too, but more recent reports mention a significant post-crash fuel leak (again, given the gear collapse, not surprising... the main gear is attached to the rear of the wing torque box, which also contains most of the fuel.) Fuel starvation via contamination now seems more likely, though you're right that both engines succumbing at the same time is rare. Waxing, leading to a symmetric narrowing of both engines' fuel lines could have choked the flow as the autothrottle commanded high power for the configured portion of the approach, after an idle decent. This is where engine monitoring system data will come in handy, as it will show parameters at the engines, and not just what was being commanded from the cockpit. Fuel samples from the lines, tanks, and the refueling rig back in China will also hopefully have some answers, as will physical examination of the lines.

As to the birdstrike crash Brems was thinking of, it was an E-3 out of Elmendorf several years ago. It hit a flock of geese on takeoff IIRC. Large birds, they damaged several of the TF33's, though I don't know if all four were incapacitated. Enough damage was done to bring the aircraft down, unfortunately.

Avro, your post reminded me of something R.J. Childerhose wrote concerning his crash of a Sabre Mk2, after a bad vector lead to fuel exhaustion over the forests of Canada. "Pilot error. The accident is always attributable to pilot error. If nothing else, it was an error for the pilot to get into the aircraft in the first place." As to the results of his accident board, he said "... It only hurt when the nails were going in."

Blottogg
01-26-2008, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
This is the image they used:

http://www.aqzm71.dsl.pipex.com/impact.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Puma, neat pic, thanks for posting it. As a bored ex-safety geek, it's interesting. Note the thrust reverser cowling just starting to separate as it makes contact with the ground (it's rotating forward as it translates back along the nacelle.) The sparks look too far forward to be attributable to the gear collapse. I think they may be caused by the fan/LP turbine spool being pushed up as the fan cowling makes contact with the fan, in turn displacing the LP turbine at the back of the motor, making contact with the aft engine casing. Electrical connections being severed could also be the source of the sparks. This was the source of ignition I first thought would have set fire to any remaining fuel. Apparently the engines were far enough outboard, and/or the spark shower was of short enough duration, to avoid igniting the fuel. The timing of the sequence of gear collapse/fuel leak/spark production was luckily aligned to avoid a fire. The apparently damp conditions no doubt helped, too.

Also note the rectangular debris aft of the wing, which looks like a piece of the roadside Armco. It really was a near miss with the road traffic!

DEY_RAVEN_UK
01-30-2008, 01:24 AM
Pilot error. He was distracted on finals

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/DEY_RAVEN_UK/plane.jpg

Heliopause
01-30-2008, 01:34 AM
LOL...
So it's not pilot error! The girl is golfing in the wrong place!

MEGILE
01-30-2008, 04:43 AM
LMAO at distraction.

Waldo.Pepper
01-30-2008, 02:40 PM
Latest news. Fuel leak/contamination. Interesting details on other engine/fuel/oil issues on same type of plane, mentioned in the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=M...01/24/nboeing224.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MLDPSMJCERUSJQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/24/nboeing224.xml)

MB_Avro_UK
01-30-2008, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DEY_RAVEN_UK:
Pilot error. He was distracted on finals

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/DEY_RAVEN_UK/plane.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah...Heathrow CCTV cameras.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

M2morris
01-30-2008, 05:08 PM
MB_avro_UK,
I just noticed something; theres an airplane in that picture.

Airmail109
01-30-2008, 07:38 PM
those look like footballs not b00bs

I would post some real boobies but erm....

BoCfuss
01-30-2008, 08:23 PM
The GE engines on the 777 have some competition me thinks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif