Plane Landed short at Heathrow
Discussion
Vipers said:
Interesting theory in todays paper by an ex pilot, as was stated an increase of engine noise, just before it "landed".
He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
Have you seen that video clip of a trial using a C130 with rocket assisted retardation? They go off a touch early, plane stops dead in the air and just drops onto the ground He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
Vipers said:
Interesting theory in todays paper by an ex pilot, as was stated an increase of engine noise, just before it "landed".
He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
This has happened before, back in 1991, a Lauda Boeing 767 developed a fault which allowed one of the thrust reversers to deploy as she was climbing out after leaving Bangkok.
As a result of the serious asymmetrical thrust the aircraft was instantly uncontrollable, lost control and broke up due to excess forces on the wings and airframe.
Had one or both thrust reversers deployed during the approach of the BA 777, it wouldn't have landed like it did, it would most probably have been a total loss including all aboard.
Eric Mc said:
In 1977, a Bristol Britannia turboprop had one set of engines on one wing go into reverse pitch as it was on approach to Shannon airport. Obviously, it never made the runway and ended up in a field. Luckilly the crew were able to walk away (it was a freight flight).
I believe this happened a few times on various types, I seem to recall it happening to a few Stratocruisers amongst other aircraft.
Though a Britannia does fly somwhat slower than a 777 so may have contributed to the survivability of the landing in that instance (I have no idea as to the approach and landing speed of a Britannia) and a Bristol Proteus produces far less (4000shp ish? Again not sure what that relates to in actual thrust) than the 75,000 - 95,000 lbs of thrust that the Trent does.
Actually Eric, do you have any idea what percentage of thrust is used in a reverser? Just curious more than anything.
stovey said:
Why are people still posting these nonsense theories when the Initial AAIB report was released some three or four days ago and quoted in full on this thread.
You mean the entire investigation and report on the crash at Heathrow is now over?????. Oh, I see you said "Initial report", anyway link please. tks. Edited by stovey on Wednesday 23 January 08:25
Had a quick look but couldnt find it, so a link would be appreciated.
Vipers said:
stovey said:
Why are people still posting these nonsense theories when the Initial AAIB report was released some three or four days ago and quoted in full on this thread.
You mean the entire investigation and report on the crash at Heathrow is now over?????. Oh, I see you said "Initial report", anyway link please. tks. Edited by stovey on Wednesday 23 January 08:25
Had a quick look but couldnt find it, so a link would be appreciated.
tonyvid said:
Vipers said:
Interesting theory in todays paper by an ex pilot, as was stated an increase of engine noise, just before it "landed".
He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
Have you seen that video clip of a trial using a C130 with rocket assisted retardation? They go off a touch early, plane stops dead in the air and just drops onto the ground He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
bob1179 said:
Actually Eric, do you have any idea what percentage of thrust is used in a reverser? Just curious more than anything.
It can be anything up to maximum (or at least on a 738 it was), as all the pilots do is open the throttles but with the reversers open (tends to be a seperate lever mounted on top of the normal throttles). Typically it was around 60-70% on the rare occasion i got to sit in the flightdeckVipers said:
stovey said:
Why are people still posting these nonsense theories when the Initial AAIB report was released some three or four days ago and quoted in full on this thread.
You mean the entire investigation and report on the crash at Heathrow is now over?????. Oh, I see you said "Initial report", anyway link please. tks. Edited by stovey on Wednesday 23 January 08:25
Had a quick look but couldnt find it, so a link would be appreciated.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accidentheathrow_17_january_2008_initial_report.cfm
stovey said:
Why are people still posting these nonsense theories when the Initial AAIB report was released some three or four days ago and quoted in full on this thread.
Exactly!Edited by stovey on Wednesday 23 January 08:25
We all know the problem was that the runway was 400m too short.
Eric Mc said:
In 1977, a Bristol Britannia turboprop had one set of engines on one wing go into reverse pitch as it was on approach to Shannon airport. Obviously, it never made the runway and ended up in a field. Luckilly the crew were able to walk away (it was a freight flight).
A Bristol Britannia has a Chrysler V8 and auto box(just to add to the bollox)
Edited by sjp63 on Wednesday 23 January 21:07
trackdemon said:
I dont have anything more to add regarding the reason the 777 was downed in the first place, but I do have one thought that the more flight-savvy of you may be able to shed some light on:
It seems strange to me that final approach is on such a shallow glide slope, for the simple reason that it leaves little room for manouvre if something goes wrong as witnessed with the 777 incident. Now I may be over-simplifying here, but if the approach is 6 degrees instead of 3 then you've got double the altitude to glide in on if you lose power and the potential trajectory is more likely to get you to the runway. I'd also suspect the risk of bird-strike decreases with altitude? As has been alluded to by others, if the 'issue' had occured 1000m earlier then we could have been reading reports of a horrific & fatal crash.
I thought EricMc would be onto this one like a shot It seems strange to me that final approach is on such a shallow glide slope, for the simple reason that it leaves little room for manouvre if something goes wrong as witnessed with the 777 incident. Now I may be over-simplifying here, but if the approach is 6 degrees instead of 3 then you've got double the altitude to glide in on if you lose power and the potential trajectory is more likely to get you to the runway. I'd also suspect the risk of bird-strike decreases with altitude? As has been alluded to by others, if the 'issue' had occured 1000m earlier then we could have been reading reports of a horrific & fatal crash.
kiwisr said:
Vipers said:
stovey said:
Why are people still posting these nonsense theories when the Initial AAIB report was released some three or four days ago and quoted in full on this thread.
You mean the entire investigation and report on the crash at Heathrow is now over?????. Oh, I see you said "Initial report", anyway link please. tks. Edited by stovey on Wednesday 23 January 08:25
Had a quick look but couldnt find it, so a link would be appreciated.
Reading it will dispell 99% of the imaginative theories people are coming up with.
Edited by stovey on Wednesday 23 January 21:49
stovey said:
Don't read the papers read the actual AAIB initial report. There are at least two links to it on this thread and it has even been quoted in full by me a couple of days ago.
Reading it will dispell 99% of the imaginative theories people are coming up with.
The report only says that the engines did not respond..Reading it will dispell 99% of the imaginative theories people are coming up with.
.. leaving open speculation as to why.
The engines were above flight idle, but failed to respond to demands for increased power.
see here: www.flightglobal.com
see here: www.flightglobal.com
tonyvid said:
Vipers said:
Interesting theory in todays paper by an ex pilot, as was stated an increase of engine noise, just before it "landed".
He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
Have you seen that video clip of a trial using a C130 with rocket assisted retardation? They go off a touch early, plane stops dead in the air and just drops onto the ground He thinks it is the engines going into reverse thrust. Remember I am only the messenger.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff