BA near miss

tut · Post by **tut** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:11 pm

Seen it many times, but still laughed my socks off at the text.

tut

Daveb · Post by **Daveb** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:34 pm

RICHARDHUMBLE wrote:They did very well, however both enignes failing at the same time suggests a lack of fuel... Lets hope not...

When the tanks run dry the engines most likely wont both cut out at once. One would stop before the other and it would start coughing / spluttering first, not just cut out straight away.

Post by **campbell** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:48 pm

Agree the crew "just did their job". Agree they are uncomfortable as heroes. But at same time, I bet they don't rock up to work every day hoping for that kind of thing to happen "just to brighten up a dreary January"...so bravo to them regardless and I do hope they get that piss up. What they so very very very narrowly avoided is not something we would wanted to have seen, is it.

tenkfeet · Post by **tenkfeet** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:09 am

Daveb wrote:
RICHARDHUMBLE wrote:They did very well, however both enignes failing at the same time suggests a lack of fuel... Lets hope not...
When the tanks run dry the engines most likely wont both cut out at once. One would stop before the other and it would start coughing / spluttering first, not just cut out straight away.

I would think gas turbines generally just flame out at a reasonable power setting (say flight idle )and just run down , they will have an auto relight feature igniters spark but if collector tanks are empty silence .

Matelotman · Post by **Matelotman** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:26 am

Don't think it was lack of fuel...seeing as how it was p1shing all over the runway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7196962.stm

steve_weegie · Post by **steve_weegie** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:59 am

fd wrote:

Software is dangerous . . .

Fd

Gotta love that BSOD....

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:06 am

Matelotman wrote:Don't think it was lack of fuel...seeing as how it was p1shing all over the runway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7196962.stm

Bear in mind that aircraft have gallons of fuel that they can't get to, also a fuel transfer problem could empty the collectors very quickly. In addition a gallon of fuel goes a long, long way.

Agreed it should not have been a lack of fuel but to loose both engines in quick succession implies something major that affects both enignes.

Just a cynical b'stard I suppose... Either it was human error (Including lack of fuel and not necessarily that of the aircrew) or a major fault. If it was a major fault Boeing would have had to ground the fleet. They know it was not a major fault as they are still flying....you would hope!!

tut · Post by **tut** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:48 am

I think that they found the cause straight away, otherwise they would have had to have taken action with the rest of the fleet. If that had happened a few hundred metres earlier, it would have wiped out the aircraft and all the buildings and people in its path

In '81, the S76 that I was flying in the morning lost a main rotor blade in the afternoon. Believe me, no pilot was going to climb back in until we had the all clear on the rest of the aircraft.

BA now has on board telemetry that is relayed instantly back to HQ, ie an active flight data recorder, along with the other three recording systems on the aircraft, which would also have been removed and analysed straight away. However neither they nor the pilots can release this information until the AAIB have their prelimanary findings.

tut

tut · Post by **tut** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:49 am

ps I think our solution was to use more Loctite...........

tut

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:50 am

True enough. As you say though they must have a damn good idea what caused it...

Smclean · Post by **Smclean** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:49 am

we wont find out the results for another year probably!

spoke to a few guys at work and they reckon that theres been a problem with the auto-thrust....

it wont be fuel contamination as they landed with over 10 tonnes of fuel on board.

who knows, they done an excellent job, ive just landed on 27R tonight and taxied past it on the way in, i still cant believe they all walked away from it.

Hats off to them especially the F.O!

Smclean · Post by **Smclean** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:49 am

we wont find out the results for another year probably!

spoke to a few guys at work and they reckon that theres been a problem with the auto-thrust....

it wont be fuel contamination as they landed with over 10 tonnes of fuel on board.

who knows, they done an excellent job, ive just landed on 27R tonight and taxied past it on the way in, i still cant believe they all walked away from it.

Hats off to them especially the F.O!

ExigeKen · Post by **ExigeKen** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:33 am

tut wrote:I think that they found the cause straight away, otherwise they would have had to have taken action with the rest of the fleet. If that had happened a few hundred metres earlier, it would have wiped out the aircraft and all the buildings and people in its path

In '81, the S76 that I was flying in the morning lost a main rotor blade in the afternoon. Believe me, no pilot was going to climb back in until we had the all clear on the rest of the aircraft.

BA now has on board telemetry that is relayed instantly back to HQ, ie an active flight data recorder, along with the other three recording systems on the aircraft, which would also have been removed and analysed straight away. However neither they nor the pilots can release this information until the AAIB have their prelimanary findings.

tut

Tut that is so right I work with DS&S who have two applications one is called Corewing that monitors telemetry in the air and sends signals back to ground so that when a plane lands the engineer knows what to look at before the plane is there. If there was an unknown fault the whole fleet would be grounded. The signals dont go to HQ they go to a building in Glasgow of all places Looks like pilot error to me !

Come on Pete spill the beans matey

Amazingly Laphroig gets passed all these controls hic

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:55 am

So no lack of fuel then with 10 tonnes!

tut · Post by **tut** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:11 am

Hoping that it is not pilot error Ken, as nothing so far is pointing that way, especially if it was doing an auto landing.

Unfortunately between 70 and 80% of Civilian flying accidents are indeed caused by pilot error.

tut