Something isn't adding up here - AAIB says engines never responded to throttle commands from either the Autothrottle or the crew advancing the levers.

The throttle system on the 777 is extremely complex and has many modes of operation but as with all the aircraft systems has numerous failsafes.
Will be interesting to see the final report to see how the crew were prevented from disconnecting the autothrottle and using manual thrust.

Flightman - PM me will you , I have a feeling you might be able to do a favour for me :thumb:

I did mention in my previous post that if the thrust reverse buckets had opersted, they act as very efficient air brakes and the aircraft would have crashed well short of the airfield. And most unlikely too without the weight on wheels switch having operated as was mentioned. If you "gunned" the engines with reverse thrust engaged the problem would be even worse of course.

I also mentioned the Airbus which crashed into some trees during a demonstration flight because for some reason of its own the computer would not allow the engines to increase power. The flight control system had to be redesigned.

Years ago there was also a case with a 757 where the computers would not allow more engine power in the same way but at high altitude. One of the pilots had to descend into the compartment below the flight deck and re-rack the computers to get the engines back!

They now say that the problem began at 600 feet which made the handling pilot's job even more difficult since he was 2/3 of a mile further away from the airfield and although he was 200 feet higher, the problem would cause him to lose even more height over the greater distance. All credit to him for saving all those lives.

I was sorry to see some people being so quick to quote "pilot error"

Les

I don't think the AAIB report suggests this - it merely says that the engines failed to respond to autothrottle and then manual throttle movements.

This suggests something external to the engines prevented them from responding to throttle movements, although it hasn't stopped various news reports from declaring 'engine failure' caused the crash :rolleyes:

Les, I think the Paris air show crash was effectively caused by pilot error. He put the aircraft into 'landing' mode in order to get it to do a very slow fly-by (something which the aircraft wasn't designed to do). By the time he throttled-up towards the end of the runway, the engines didn't have time to respond (they take about 6 seconds to spool up to full thrust) and the aircraft fell into the trees. If you watch the video, you can hear the engines start to screem just as the plane starts to clip the trees.

Unfortunatelly, while all the fail-safe systems make modern airliners very easy to fly, they sometimes don't cope if operated in a way which they weren't designed for. The TAM A320 crash in Brazil was caused by the pilot only moving only one throttle to reverse thrust because the thrust reverser on the other engine was locked out of use. This cased one engine to deploy reverse thrust, but the aircraft demanded power from the other engine as if performing a go-round because it had been left in the autothrottle position.

I'm not suggesting pilot error in the Heathrow crash - more likely a complete failure of an aircraft driven system.

Fair enough on the Airbus crash Dave and why the engines would not respond, I had not realised the reason for it and I am not too impressed either. Hard to believe that a system should not allow you to apply power whenever it might be needed.

Yes I certainly know how long it takes to spool jet engines up, and of course one flies with that in mind at all times so that you dont get into a situtaion where you might need the power quickly from the idle postion. Had enough practice at that one:) The Olympus 300 series used to take longer than 6 seconds too from idle! The Spey was a bit faster I think.

I do find it a bit of a concern that modern systems are designed to operate as you say. The A320 problem you menntioned is a case in point. It is as though the systems are being designed to operate "by numbers" and I can see how under pressure that can lead to problems when the aircrew are operating under a common sense attitude instead of having to remember complicated requirements like that. Control systems which are often required to operate quickly should remain absolutely simple in their requirements. There are time when the pilots' normal methods of operating are more important than the control systems deciding for them and the traps that can lead to as you described. Even autopilots and autothrottles used to disengage the moment you overrode them.

It will be interesting to see what happened in the case of the 777.

Les

Les, Pilots make errors, the aircraft generally don't generally lose both engines and land short of the runway, pilot error is a factor in a fair proportion of accidents, people do make mistakes, I am sure that as a pilot you must have made the odd one. That is not to criticise what is generally a very professional group of people but you do hear about the odd one going postal or turning up still p1ssed from the night before.

Luckily, as the accident leaves a fairly intact plane with the recorders found and intact, the cause should be easier to find than if it had ended up in the sea or a mountain.

In all seriousness, if the guy who actually landed the plane had made an almightly cock up, im pretty sure if i was the captain along side him at the time, i would be distancing myself from him not praising him in a press conference, as has happened.

Im not sure politically how it works with airlines, pilots, etc but surely if the captain knew an error was made, he wouldnt go public praising the guy who made the error?

Les, i also think it is a shame to see the comments suggesting pilot error.

777 pilots are very experienced, and i can't believe they'd make such a silly error.

Just to be pedantic, there is no such thing as pilot error - humans make mistakes. Machines and limitations or measurement introduce error.

Does anyone honestly think BA would have paraded the crew in front of the worlds media, given them a statement that allowed them to praise the fantastic work done by all the crew, after having debriefed them and been able to ascertain what went wrong, IF THEY'D BALLSED UP THE LANDING?

Purlease......:brickwall

Did they have a choice ?

I still think that its human error, we have been told it wasn't weather and to be honest the public wont want to hear it it's down to the Plane, software or hardware, the 777 has been around for long enough to be tried and tested and 999.99999999999999999999 times out of a 1000 they land on the runway, not before, not after.

It hadn't run out of fuel due to the amount swilling around the lights as per Flightmans post, it wasn't the weather, it wasn't a bird strike as the theres non on the video and it would have to be two big ones that synchronised their efforts.

I suspect it's down to Pilot error or maintenance problems , why did the captain point out it was the second officer flying the plane (which rules out the autoland) ?

Otherwise the 777 is unsafe and will be grounded.

Actually, yes. I am that cynical. Its called a whitewash, and there will be many of those still to come in my lifetime.

I do however, think that in this case this is not what is happening :)

The Captain can try and shift the blame all he wants - the fact is he was still in charge of that flight and must carry the ultimate responsibility. He can't just shift the blame.

There isn't yet any blame to shift :brickwall

of course they had a choice. Jesus guys this is getting silly. Whilst I am not a pilot I work with enough of them to know the breed. There is no way this was pilot error. BA SOP is to allow the FO to take the landing for short finals. Its how FO's get experience and how they become captains. Safety is everything in modern aviation nothing is done before considering it no matter how benefial it may be Wait for AAIB to report. I'm still putting money on a systems failure.

In an effort to improve safety Heathrow are now introducing new runway lights.

https://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b...smc/runway.gif

:lol1: That will work for about a week....

...after that the chavs will have worked out that all they have to do is unscrew all the blue "here" bulbs and the red "not" bulbs :lol1: Carnage (planeage??) will ensue :D

Hey that final approach to LHR is a complete bugger - I almost piled me 737 into the M4!!!!

I kid you not (well.... ish. I was able to fly the British Midland 737 Flight Sim the day before it went live)

And Lucas electrics too, apparently.

It's a good job this wasn't a RyanAir flight though. Firstly the passengers wouldn't have known that anything out of the ordinary was going on, even after the plane came to a complete stop since all their landings are as comfortable as this one.

Then they'd try to leave the plane, only to be charged an extra £15 for use of the inflatable slide

Indeed.

The fact that that the autothrottle and then the pilot asked for more power, without the aircraft responding, is obviously the fault of the Captain. :rolleyes: :iamwithst

and the extra petrol to the Terminal building.....

Jesus, there's no need to resort to impenetrable shorthand to give the impression of knowing what you're on about! Speak English, For Flip's Sake.:rolleyes:

He obviously didn't shout at it loud enough, or hit it hard enough ;)

It is expected that giant airbags will be inflated under the wreckage of flight BA038 so it can be dragged to the site, where investigators will continue with their examination.

So that means kerry katona on one wing with jordan on the other and charlie dimmock on the undercarraige!

SOP is standard operating procedure
FO is first officer
BA is British Airways

Not resorting to anything Bubba. :razz:

It's OK, TLAs give me the EBGBs, that's all. :D

I know what you mean. People keep asking me if it flew a CDA, complied with the NPR or picked up a NINF. ;)

Read the thread in chronological order and you'll see my comments are referring to previous posters comments insinuating that the Captain was distancing himself from the FO. :iamwithst

Not all of these pilots seem to be perfect as some are making out.


BBC News | UK | Who's high in the sky?

Chip

What are the chances that the plane will fly again ?

I am thinking that its highly unlikely but its a very expensive plane and it, to the casual non expert doesn't look that badly bent, I suppose they would inspect it in minute detail and make a decision then.

I couldn't imagine any uk airline running it but I suspect it would turn up somewhere in Africa yf it did get repaired.

I am thinking it will be used for spares.