Plane Landed short at Heathrow
Discussion
fatboy b said:
ruttboy said:
Got home last night to a phone message from BA informing my wife to call them. Dialled the number only to be told that my Sister in Law was flight crew on the plane involved.....
...Sister in Law took a wallop to her head which she has been treated for, and from what I can gather she was near the over wing exit on the left, so where the fuselage was punctured, as she described some minor trauma injuries which she witnessed as debris came through.
Ruttboy.
I hope she was cabin crew. Otherwise what were the flight crew doing at the wing exit?...Sister in Law took a wallop to her head which she has been treated for, and from what I can gather she was near the over wing exit on the left, so where the fuselage was punctured, as she described some minor trauma injuries which she witnessed as debris came through.
Ruttboy.
215cu said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Yesterday was a very lucky escape, in 1972, the Staines aircrash passengers were not so lucky.
Edited by Nuclearsquash on Friday 18th January 10:10
Nuclearsquash said:
215cu said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Yesterday was a very lucky escape, in 1972, the Staines aircrash passengers were not so lucky.
Edited by Nuclearsquash on Friday 18th January 10:10
There s0 so much conflicting information being bandied about now. Because that BA tug driver said that the pilot "lost power", the media have jumped to the conclusiuon that
a) both engines stopped or
b) all his electrics failed or
c) both of the above
From the very believable description of events from the stewardess above, it does seem that the engines did NOT stop. This would tally with the thrust reversers deploying on landing. They activate as soon as the wheels touch the ground so that is perfectly sensible if the engines were still running.
My original thoughts were "windshear" and I am beginning to return to that as a possible explanation.
Regarding fatal accidents at Heathrow, there have been very few considering how many aircraft use the place. Off hand I can think of the Avro Vulcan crash in 1958, a BEA Vickers Vanguard crash in fog in 1966, a Dan Air Airspeed Ambassador crash in 1967 and the BEA Trident crash in 1972.
a) both engines stopped or
b) all his electrics failed or
c) both of the above
From the very believable description of events from the stewardess above, it does seem that the engines did NOT stop. This would tally with the thrust reversers deploying on landing. They activate as soon as the wheels touch the ground so that is perfectly sensible if the engines were still running.
My original thoughts were "windshear" and I am beginning to return to that as a possible explanation.
Regarding fatal accidents at Heathrow, there have been very few considering how many aircraft use the place. Off hand I can think of the Avro Vulcan crash in 1958, a BEA Vickers Vanguard crash in fog in 1966, a Dan Air Airspeed Ambassador crash in 1967 and the BEA Trident crash in 1972.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 18th January 10:23
fatboy b said:
Knick Pee said:
I've just quizzed one of our very experienced pilots about this subject.
He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
I very much doubt that would be the case. Each engine draws fuel from a different tank. So for this to happen, both feed lines would have to block at the same time. The bypass system would be used to correct fuel imbalance due to high consumtion or leak. I also doubt that an airport would be allowed to fuel a plane with incorrect fuel, if there is a chance ice could form in it when the plane flies at it's normal altitude.He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
I'm not familiar with the fuel systems on the B777, but, on long haul flights, I know that fuel has to be shuffled around the aircraft quite a bit, to maintain the C of G in the correct place, so it sounds feasible to me, that after a long flight, with not much fuel remaining, all the fuel being used could have been fed into one centre tank..
215cu said:
Nuclearsquash said:
215cu said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Yesterday was a very lucky escape, in 1972, the Staines aircrash passengers were not so lucky.
Edited by Nuclearsquash on Friday 18th January 10:10
HTH
Fatboy said:
215cu said:
Nuclearsquash said:
215cu said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Yesterday was a very lucky escape, in 1972, the Staines aircrash passengers were not so lucky.
Edited by Nuclearsquash on Friday 18th January 10:10
HTH
There are thousands of commercial flights over the UK in any day, should we ban them from flying over land in case they have an accident and crash into a populated area?
Simpo Two said:
Latest fro R4 suggests double engine failure for some reason, and th epilot had to glide it in. That would explain the eye-witness who saw it approaching from a different angle, no doubt as it tried to cut the corner and so shorten the approach.
You can't help thinking that if the engines had failed a minute earlier, it would have had to do a WW2-style wheels up landing in a field...
I'm not a pilot but putting myself in that position, the decision would have been - wheels down (but shortens glide) or up (crash for sure)?
Where has all this sharp turn stuff come from? Living as I do under the flightpath for 27L, you can see these planes queued up in a line that stretches out to past Docklands! There aren't any sharp turns anywhere near Heathrow. You can't help thinking that if the engines had failed a minute earlier, it would have had to do a WW2-style wheels up landing in a field...
I'm not a pilot but putting myself in that position, the decision would have been - wheels down (but shortens glide) or up (crash for sure)?
As for the 'wheels up' landing in a field, there aren't any under the flightpath. Just houses and roads. We're lucky this thing didn't land (sic) on top of somebody's (various somebody's) house(s). A lucky escape for not just the passengers and crew I feel.
Papoo said:
fatboy b said:
Knick Pee said:
I've just quizzed one of our very experienced pilots about this subject.
He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
I very much doubt that would be the case. Each engine draws fuel from a different tank. So for this to happen, both feed lines would have to block at the same time. The bypass system would be used to correct fuel imbalance due to high consumtion or leak. I also doubt that an airport would be allowed to fuel a plane with incorrect fuel, if there is a chance ice could form in it when the plane flies at it's normal altitude.He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
I'm not familiar with the fuel systems on the B777, but, on long haul flights, I know that fuel has to be shuffled around the aircraft quite a bit, to maintain the C of G in the correct place, so it sounds feasible to me, that after a long flight, with not much fuel remaining, all the fuel being used could have been fed into one centre tank..
Fatboy said:
215cu said:
Nuclearsquash said:
215cu said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Yesterday was a very lucky escape, in 1972, the Staines aircrash passengers were not so lucky.
Edited by Nuclearsquash on Friday 18th January 10:10
HTH
"some legitimate fears have been put to rest. We now know for example that there will be no third runway at Heathrow - a widespread concern before the inquiry started." (‘Heathrow News, Produced For Local Residents by BAA Heathrow’, May 1997.
and....
"The problem at Heathrow is not the lack of runway capacity but shortage of terminal space…The inevitable overcrowding until T5 is build is likely to cause…problems…" (BAA News Release - BAA warns of potential “national crisis …” 12th October 1997)
and....
"We have since repeated often that we do not want, nor shall we seek, an additional runway. I can now report that we went even further at the Inquiry and called on the Inspector to recommend that, subject to permission being given for T5, an additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever." Sir John Egan, BAA Chairman, 1999.
"it is the company’s view that the local communities around Heathrow should be given assurances…BAA would urge the Government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow, and BAA would support a recommendation by the Inquiry Inspector in his report that the Government should rule it out. Indeed BAA invites the Inspector to make such a recommendation." Sir John Egan, BAA Chairman, 1999.
Next smart alec remark please.
Regarding the Tupolev Tu-154, that would be the last plane I would like to be in if the pilot was carrying out a very hard landing. For those of you not familiar with the Tu-154 (or its close family relatives, the Tu-104, 124 and 134), the wing design was based on the 1950s jet bomber design, The Tupolev Tu-16 Badger. Because this was a bomber, the centre fuselage contained the bomb bay and, of course, the belly of the plane contained the bomb doors. To ensure that the bomb doors were unobstructed, the mainwheels were placed about 1/3 out on the wings. They retracted backwards into streamlined farings. This means, if a Tu-124/134/154 makes avery hard landing, the main wing spar takes the brunt of the impact which is then transferred through the spar to the central attachment point to the fuselage. On a couple of occasions this has caused the wings to separate entirely from the fuselage - with massive fuel spillage and fire. Not a nice scenario.
Western airliners (and more modern Russian designs too) have the main undercarriage loctated under the central fuselge or close to the wing roots where forces are directed upwards through the fuselage itself, rather than the wing attachment points.
Very large airliners, like the 777 and 747, have auxilliary mainheels in the wings but they are still very centrally located. It was interesting to see that, after yesterday's accident, the port mainwheel leg had been driven right up through the wing - but the wing remained attached and relatively little fuel was spilt.
Western airliners (and more modern Russian designs too) have the main undercarriage loctated under the central fuselge or close to the wing roots where forces are directed upwards through the fuselage itself, rather than the wing attachment points.
Very large airliners, like the 777 and 747, have auxilliary mainheels in the wings but they are still very centrally located. It was interesting to see that, after yesterday's accident, the port mainwheel leg had been driven right up through the wing - but the wing remained attached and relatively little fuel was spilt.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 18th January 10:42
Marki said:
ZR1cliff said:
Solid gone, excellent 
747, looks like it's going surfing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfQwDizpRo&fea...
Was that you on the telly last night CLiff ,, gor blimey guvna you will never guess who i ad in the back of the cab last night 747, looks like it's going surfing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAfQwDizpRo&fea...
Eric Mc said:
Regarding the Tupolev Tu-154, that would be the last plane I would like to be in if the pilot was carrying out a very hard landing. For those of you not familiar with the Tu-154 (or its close family relatives, the Tu-104, 124 and 134), the wing design was based on the 1950s jet bomber design, The Tupolev Tu-16 Badger. Because this was a bomber, the centre fuselage contained the bomb bay and, of course, the belly of the plane contained the bomb doors. To ensure that the bomb doors were unobstructed, the mainwheels were placed about 1/3 out on the wings. They retracted backwards into streamlined farings. This means, if a Tu-124/134/154 makes avery hard landing, the main wing spar takes the brunt of the impact which is then transferred through the spar to the central attachment point to the fuselage. On a couple of occasions this has caused the wings to separate entirely from the fuselage - with massive fuel spillage and fire. Not a nice scenario.
Western airliners (and more modern Russian designs too) have the main undercarriage loctated under the central fuselge or close to the wing roots where forces are directed upwards through the fuselage itself, rather than the wing attachment points.
Very large airliners, like the 777 and 747, have auxilliary mainheels in the wings but they are still very centrally located. It was interesting to see that, after yesterday's accident, the port mainwheel leg had been driven right up through the wing - but the wing remained attached and relatively little fuel was spilt.
I had one very hard landing in a 154 as well. All seemed to go ok. No-one died anyway. Western airliners (and more modern Russian designs too) have the main undercarriage loctated under the central fuselge or close to the wing roots where forces are directed upwards through the fuselage itself, rather than the wing attachment points.
Very large airliners, like the 777 and 747, have auxilliary mainheels in the wings but they are still very centrally located. It was interesting to see that, after yesterday's accident, the port mainwheel leg had been driven right up through the wing - but the wing remained attached and relatively little fuel was spilt.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 18th January 10:42
I can believe what you're saying about the WWII bomber. I cast an eye over the cockpit of a 154 and it took me straight back to two films, Dam Busters and Das Boot!
MilnerR said:
Lucky escape for all concerned. I bet the flight deck recorder makes for some interesting listening in those final 5 seconds before touch down.....
Yep... my money is on..."SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttt!"
215cu said:
MilnerR said:
Lucky escape for all concerned. I bet the flight deck recorder makes for some interesting listening in those final 5 seconds before touch down.....
Yep... my money is on..."SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttt!"
After all, aren't BA pilots all very well-spoken?
Eric Mc said:
Regarding the Tupolev Tu-154, that would be the last plane I would like to be in if the pilot was carrying out a very hard landing. For those of you not familiar with the Tu-154 (or its close family relatives, the Tu-104, 124 and 134), the wing design was based on the 1950s jet bomber design, The Tupolev Tu-16 Badger. Because this was a bomber, the centre fuselage contained the bomb bay and, of course, the belly of the plane contained the bomb doors. To ensure that the bomb doors were unobstructed, the mainwheels were placed about 1/3 out on the wings. They retracted backwards into streamlined farings. This means, if a Tu-124/134/154 makes avery hard landing, the main wing spar takes the brunt of the impact which is then transferred through the spar to the central attachment point to the fuselage. On a couple of occasions this has caused the wings to separate entirely from the fuselage - with massive fuel spillage and fire. Not a nice scenario.
Western airliners (and more modern Russian designs too) have the main undercarriage loctated under the central fuselge or close to the wing roots where forces are directed upwards through the fuselage itself, rather than the wing attachment points.
Very large airliners, like the 777 and 747, have auxilliary mainheels in the wings but they are still very centrally located. It was interesting to see that, after yesterday's accident, the port mainwheel leg had been driven right up through the wing - but the wing remained attached and relatively little fuel was spilt.
Western airliners (and more modern Russian designs too) have the main undercarriage loctated under the central fuselge or close to the wing roots where forces are directed upwards through the fuselage itself, rather than the wing attachment points.
Very large airliners, like the 777 and 747, have auxilliary mainheels in the wings but they are still very centrally located. It was interesting to see that, after yesterday's accident, the port mainwheel leg had been driven right up through the wing - but the wing remained attached and relatively little fuel was spilt.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 18th January 10:42
I've flown on a few Soviet aircraft, I believe a lot of them (TU-154 included) were designed to be able to land on grass airstrips or 'rough' airstrips that are essentially flat but not covered.
I doubt any aircraft will be able to land on a 'ploughed field' as previously stated, let alone anything Soviet/Russian built.
As an aside, when Air Astana first started flying into Atyrau Airport, the only western equipment able to land on the original Soviet built runway was their 757 as nothing else was deemed able to handle the length and roughness of the surface. Now they've built a modern longer tarmac runway they can handle 767's.
Going back TU-154, I believe there is footage on YouTube somewhere of a 154 (could be a TU-134 or Ilyshin 62, I saw it a long time ago) actually landing in a sloped grass field, I remember the wings bouncing a bit a large amount of dust, but otherwise the old girl came down fine.
215cu said:
Ahem, when I bought my house, BAA gave legal testimony to the T5 public enquiry they would not expand Heathrow any further than T5.
Yes but plans do change, as indeed they have. At the time BAA gave that testomony they probably believed it themselves, and couldn't foresee how air traffic would grow.However if you buy a propoerty anywhere near something which might be considered an unsocial neighbour (such as an airport, racetrack, power station etc) you should assume that at some point in the future use of that facility might change affecting the enjoyment of your property.
215cu said:
Nuclearsquash said:
215cu said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Yesterday was a very lucky escape, in 1972, the Staines aircrash passengers were not so lucky.
Edited by Nuclearsquash on Friday 18th January 10:10
There will be a probability of an aircraft having issues 30 seconds from the airport, but there will also be a probability for aircraft having issues 5 minutes from the airport over central London. You could equally say that Buckingham Palace is on 'borrowed time' because nothing has crashed into it for ages.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff