272 replies to this topic

[G-BOAC]

Latest:The type of Boeing aircraft that crash-landed short of the runway at London Heathrow this month has had six other engine failures in the past decade, The Daily Telegraph reported Thursday.


Citing records kept by the US National Transportation Safety Board, the newspaper said that as recently as September 2006, an engine on a Boeing 777 flying near Brisbane, Australia, failed.

When contacted by the Telegraph, a Boeing spokesman said: "The 777 has been in service for 12 years and has flown around 3.6 million flight hours during which there have been no fatalities. It would be inappropriate to comment at this stage."

British Airways flight 38 narrowly got over nearby rooftops and Heathrow's perimeter fence before crash-landing on the grass on January 17, meaning all 136 passengers and 16 crew escaped with their lives.

In an initial report on the incident, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said that the twin engines failed to respond to the throttles at a height of about 600 feet (180 metres) and two miles (3.2 kilometres) from touch down.

According to the Telegraph, an investigator from the US National Transportation Safety Board is working with the AAIB to determine the exact cause of the accident.


The British Airways plane that crash-landed at Heathrow last week did not suffer a total power failure as it approached the airport, investigators said on Thursday.

(Advertisement)
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch said the Boeing 777's two engines failed to deliver extra thrust as it came into land, but did not cut out completely.

In a second preliminary report, investigators said they were still trying to work out what caused the lack of thrust during the flight's final moments.

"The engines both initially responded but after about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced," the report said. "Some eight seconds later the thrust reduced on the left engine to a similar level.

"The engines did not shut down and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust."

The reason for the lack of thrust is not yet known. The plane, which was flying on autopilot, was carrying enough fuel.

Investigators will now examine the system which takes the fuel from the tanks to the engines.

Eighteen passengers were slightly injured when BA Flight 38 from Beijing landed short of the runway last Thursday.

Its undercarriage was ripped off and its wings damaged after it only just cleared the perimeter fence.

Scores of flights were cancelled. Among the planes delayed was a flight carrying Prime Minister Gordon Brown on an official trip to India and China.

(Reporting by Peter Griffiths)

Very Interesting.

[Humpty Dumpty]

There'll probably be a few more injured added to the 18 once they realise they can make a whiplash claim! Appears to be the norm here in the UK and US.

Wonder how long before everyone panics and grounds the 777 fleet. Why is there such a big fuss when one plane has a fault compared to the hundreds of cars worldwide that are involved in accidents everyday because of brake failure, light failure etc.

'Quick, a Ford Fiesta crashed into a barrier because the brakes failed. don't worry everyones OK but we'd better ban any other Fiestas being taken out on the road in the meantime'

The only reason that an airline accident makes big news is because they are so rare.

[MattGarner]

I don't think they will ground the 777. Its a safe aircraft.

[Prancer]

Humpty Dumpty, on Jan 24 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Wonder how long before everyone panics and grounds the 777 fleet. Why is there such a big fuss when one plane has a fault compared to the hundreds of cars worldwide that are involved in accidents everyday because of brake failure, light failure etc.

It's much harder for a car to go out of control over a heavily-populated area, plow into a bunch of homes and businesses, explode, and kill hundreds, if not thousands. Sort of like if this 777 hit the ground a couple seconds earlier and plowed into that busy road.

[bigflyersmallbyer]

Just to think if it had not  made it to the runway the catastrophic damage it would have caused...

[MrCargo]

Humpty Dumpty, on Jan 24 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

'Quick, a Ford Fiesta crashed into a barrier because the brakes failed. don't worry everyones OK but we'd better ban any other Fiestas being taken out on the road in the meantime'

Car manufacturers recall cars all the time.  No one makes a big deal out of car accidents because MOST of the time, they're caused by driver error.

And when something does fail, it's usually because the driver didn't maintain the car properly.

When something on a PLANE fails, it's usually because the manufacturer may have done something wrong.

Not because the pilot installed his aftermarket Brembo brakes incorrectly.

[_NW_]

MattGarner, on Jan 25 2008, 05:59 AM, said:

I don't think they will ground the 777. Its a safe aircraft.

It's only as safe as the nuts behind the wheel and the nuts maintaining it.

[DJ Iceman]

If they would have had the engines running at "landing" wouldn't that mean that they would have caught fire somewhere?  Maybe somewhere inside the engines?

IIRC there was no fire damage whatsoever...

[mulletman]

(SH)Iceman, on Jan 29 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

If they would have had the engines running at "landing" wouldn't that mean that they would have caught fire somewhere?  Maybe somewhere inside the engines?

IIRC there was no fire damage whatsoever...

nope, your car doesn't instantly catch fire if you crash it and a plane is no different.

Fred

[Heimi77]

MrCargo, on Jan 27 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Humpty Dumpty, on Jan 24 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

'Quick, a Ford Fiesta crashed into a barrier because the brakes failed. don't worry everyones OK but we'd better ban any other Fiestas being taken out on the road in the meantime'

Car manufacturers recall cars all the time.  No one makes a big deal out of car accidents because MOST of the time, they're caused by driver error.

And when something does fail, it's usually because the driver didn't maintain the car properly.

When something on a PLANE fails, it's usually because the manufacturer may have done something wrong.

Not because the pilot installed his aftermarket Brembo brakes incorrectly.

NWilkinson, on Jan 29 2008, 07:55 AM, said:

MattGarner, on Jan 25 2008, 05:59 AM, said:

I don't think they will ground the 777. Its a safe aircraft.

It's only as safe as the nuts behind the wheel and the nuts maintaining it.

Boeing Statistic
Reasons for Total Loss of Jet Aircraft:

-57% Mistake by Flight Crew (Human Factors)
-17% Technical Failure of aircraft (Deisgn)
-13% Weather Conditions
-6%  other reasons
-4%  wrong maintenance (Human Factors)
-4%  Mistake by Air Traffic Control



Relation between Human Factor and technical failures turned around since the beginning of flying in early 1900`s.
1903 it was 80% technical failure and 20% human factors.
Today its 80% human factors and only 20% technical failure.

Edited by Heimi77, 29 January 2008 - 03:03 PM.

[DJ Iceman]

mulletman, on Jan 29 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

(SH)Iceman, on Jan 29 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

If they would have had the engines running at "landing" wouldn't that mean that they would have caught fire somewhere?  Maybe somewhere inside the engines?

IIRC there was no fire damage whatsoever...

nope, your car doesn't instantly catch fire if you crash it and a plane is no different.

Fred

Go crash your car into a gas tank then. XD

Just kidding...

I just think that after a while, fuel would have leaked or something if it hit that bad, from ruptured fuel lines in the destroyed engines or something...just find a signal that fuel was there...

[mulletman]

Its not awfully flammable stuff jp5. Its about as hard to light as diesel, it won't go up if there is a spark like octane does, you have to get it pretty hot, the back of an idling engine probably isn't hot enough, especially when its going through wet mud.

Fred

[mark_90]

AAIB Special Report

http://www.aaib.dft....tin_s1_2008.cfm