272 replies to this topic

[G-BOAC]

Rupert Hughes, on Jan 17 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Probably is a stall, but like I previously mentioned. It cant' be that low below VS1.

That plane must have had no fuel look at that picture.


http://news.bbc.co.u...res/7194201.stm

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

Heathrow Airport, on Jan 17 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

Just a little Hint guys, Wings Punctured rite through, no fire were the fuel that would cause a fire?

Debate?

The pilot himself said the a/c was at a stall on Short Finals.

What?


I thought the pilot said he lost all power and had to "glide it in"?

[Jayhawk]

Heathrow Airport, on Jan 17 2008, 07:35 PM, said:

Rupert Hughes, on Jan 17 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Probably is a stall, but like I previously mentioned. It cant' be that low below VS1.

That plane must have had no fuel look at that picture.


http://news.bbc.co.u...res/7194201.stm

Or th fuel was in one of the center tanks

[G-BOAC]

mark_90, on Jan 17 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

Heathrow Airport, on Jan 17 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

Heathrows Runway is 10553feet long you could land a small plane half way down

Make that 12,008ft

27L opened to arrivals as well now apparently.

Yep, 27L Arrivals and 27R Departures.

[Tim.]

So this is why Pprune is down!

[mark_90]

Heathrow Airport, on Jan 17 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

Just a little Hint guys, Wings Punctured rite through, no fire were the fuel that would cause a fire?

Debate?

Taken from VAT-UK forums...

Quote

The wing tanks on the 777 begin around about the engine extending outwards towards the tip.

Where the wheel strut appears to of pierced the wing is where the centre tank is located, which would have zero (or the unusable fuel) remnants in it, as a scavenge system operates to move the fuel to the main/wing tanks. Not quite the 8+ tonnes you think could be set alight.

[G-BOAC]

Jayhawk, on Jan 17 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

Heathrow Airport, on Jan 17 2008, 07:35 PM, said:

Rupert Hughes, on Jan 17 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Probably is a stall, but like I previously mentioned. It cant' be that low below VS1.

That plane must have had no fuel look at that picture.


http://news.bbc.co.u...res/7194201.stm

Or th fuel was in one of the center tanks

Tim., on Jan 17 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

So this is why Pprune is down!

Yep!

mark_90, on Jan 17 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

Heathrow Airport, on Jan 17 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

Just a little Hint guys, Wings Punctured rite through, no fire were the fuel that would cause a fire?

Debate?

Taken from VAT-UK forums...

Quote

The wing tanks on the 777 begin around about the engine extending outwards towards the tip.

Where the wheel strut appears to of pierced the wing is where the centre tank is located, which would have zero (or the unusable fuel) remnants in it, as a scavenge system operates to move the fuel to the main/wing tanks. Not quite the 8+ tonnes you think could be set alight.

But still,

Oh yeah 27L is currently being used for Arrivals like i said so i am guessing that they are using only 1/2 or safely 3/4 the Runway.

[jetblast787]

no, they are still landing on 27R, confirmation via my airband radio. would be too dangerous to land on the left due to all the fire crews and cars on the runway. just a question, now they are using 27L for departures, how far away from the 772ER do 744's have to be to not move the aircraft by using their jetblast?  Thinking about this, what about if they use a 747 with full take off power to move the 772

[Chief_Bean]

Why is PPRUNE down? I don't understand the link

[Fresh]

Heathrow Airport, on Jan 17 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

Rupert Hughes, on Jan 17 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Probably is a stall, but like I previously mentioned. It cant' be that low below VS1.

That plane must have had no fuel look at that picture.


http://news.bbc.co.u...res/7194201.stm

Well thats not fuel thats just foam that they would have sprayed on the undercarriage:



Will be interesting to find out what caused this one.

[George Bush]

, it's a good thing the crew brough it down well. Nevertheless thety're going to get closely examined and questioned and intterogated by the accidenty board people.

THe radio is being a saying 'there has been a plane CRASH IN HETHROW!!!.........a plane bellylanded safely'

[Pattyboy10]

Quote

It wasn't going around, both engines and avionics failed over hounslow and they were forced to do such a landing due to a decrease in airspeed. It will be very close to a stall, but because of the slow speed people might have thought it 'dropped like a stone'.


Tell us everything you remember about the ATC! I wish I took my airband radio with me to school today
Nothing ever interesting happens at heathrow

Hahaha funny

you please explain to me how a 777 moder twin jet can loose all its avionics and have both engines failing at once? IMPOSSIBLE my friend. That for sure wasnt it...

If you ask me what happened i'll say a sudden wind shear at finals, attempted go around failed and it smacked on the ground. But that's only speculating.

Thank god no one died or serious injuries.

[Max.]

nvm

Edited by Max., 17 January 2008 - 02:22 PM.

[Chief_Bean]

Why don't we just wait and see what actually happened instead of speculating and arguing?

[Pattyboy10]

There was a little terrorist hiden in one of the engine cownlings and snapped all the fuel lines and pressed the on/off buttons for the avionics !


Oh CMON PPL, A LITTLE SENSE ! haha

[Mul.]

Don't know about the Avionics but engine failures certainly aren't an impossible. It would also back up the low speed / high angle of attack that eye witnesses have mentioned.

Edited by Mul., 17 January 2008 - 02:29 PM.

[Tim.]

Pattyboy10, on Jan 17 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

There was a little terrorist hiden in one of the engine cownlings and snapped all the fuel lines and pressed the on/off buttons for the avionics !


Oh CMON PPL, A LITTLE SENSE ! haha

I've got an idea!



Shut up.

[Chief_Bean]

Mul., on Jan 17 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

Don't know about the Avionics but engine failures certainly aren't an impossible. It would also back up the low speed / high angle of attack that eye witnesses have mentioned.

As well as the fact the pilot said he had to glide it in. Did you mean to say 'improbable' Patty? Because as Mul said, it's certainly not impossible...

[Mul.]

http://www.airliners...file/1318129/L/

Surely an open APU Outlet would imply that the 777 probably did suffer complete loss of power? Had a read on the a.net discussion and they say that the APU outlet automatically opens in the event of complete power loss and of course, is only normally open otherwise when on the ground.

[Pattyboy10]

yeah well maybe I was wrong. I just couldnt see how such a plane would loose both its engines

Would've been scary in this case !