British Airways Boeing 777 Crash
January 18th, 2008
As you will have already have discovered, a British Airways Boeing 777-200ER crash landed at London Heathrow Airport just after mid-day on January 17 2008.
Aside from a few injuries, all 136 passengers and 16 crew made it off the airplane safely.
The UK’s AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) is due to file an initial report during January 19 2007, approximately 48 hours after the crash.
The cause is still being investigated with early reports of first engine failure (FADEC) followed by a loss of all flight controls, avionics and electrical systems.
Reuters too is reporting engine failure as a probable cause of the crash.
“At approximately 600 feet and two miles from touch down, the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond,” the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in a statement.
The airplane crash landed short of the threshold of runway 27L having barely made it over the airport perimeter fence.
You can follow the unfolding story by clicking right here.
Image courtesy of the BBC
For more information regarding any disruption/flight changes at London Heathrow Airport, please visit their site by clicking here.
British Airways also has an advisory and updated information on its site which can be accessed by clicking here or here.
Image courtesy of heathrowpictures.com
The aircraft in question is a Boeing 777-200ER, powered by Rolls Royce Trent 800 engines - registration G-YMMM, delivered May 31, 2001, serial number 342, MSN 30314.
Sphere: Related ContentEntry Filed under: Air Transport, Air Travel, Airlines, Airplane, Airplanes, Airport, Airports, BA, BAA, Boeing 777, British Airways, Heathrow, Travel
19 Comments Add your own
1. british airways crash Tre&hellip | January 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am
[…] January 17 2008. Aside from a few injuries, all 136 passengers and 16 crew made it off the … credit : […]
2. John Wentworth | January 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Was the” RAT” deployed?
3. boeing777 | January 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
It’s still inconclusive at this stage John.
From this link, the image seems to suggest it may have been deployed, but not fully extended.
4. John Wentworth | January 18th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
The Rat looks like it may of been deployed? The APU inlet door was also open. ..Loss of power on the transfere busses would of sent the APU into an auto start condition and the RAT would auto deploy within .5 sec….Whatever the cause..the crew did a great job !
5. John Wentworth | January 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
However…RAT door has been torn off and it opens outward. RAT blades could still be locked in the 12 & 6 position…which could lead one to believe RAT was stowed? I looked to see if the blade lock pin was extended or retracted on the RAT…could not get that detail out of the picture. APU door will take 30-40 sec. to open…?
6. Ken | January 18th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
There would seem to be something missing in this scenario and thats fire, the fuel tanks were punctured by the landing gear and it looks like the center tank was holed as well. So my question would be? did this aircraft run out of fuel at a very fortunate time.
7. Don Shuper | January 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Wonder if thrust reversers were deployed due to major electrical glitch ?
could account for large engine noise reported but no thrust power
?
8. Don Shuper | January 19th, 2008 at 2:03 am
There was fuel leakage spillage- and reports make no mention of lack of fuel , etc.
Most probably a major electrical glitch
For whatever reason the fuel leakage did not seem to start a fire- and the foam trucks got there in short order. Even so - a bit of luck all around
reminds me of * famous * comment by Ernie Gann in one of his first books - goes like this paraphrased ” an airplane crashes- investigations abound - eventually a reason is found - often blaming the pilot- but what no one is ever willing to admit is that from time to time some unknown genie has unzipped his fly and urinated on the pillar of science “
9. HarryMann | January 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
There was indeed severe squalls in the London and Home Counties that lunchtime… I saw one from office window, 25 miles from Heathrow at circa 2pm, dark low cloud, colossal gusts enough to take small branches off (wintertime) leafless trees.. horz rain on the wind, at least 10 minutes duration.
Presumably a gross demand for power so late in the approach would only be caused by windshear? You wouldn’t run out of height or energy on a std ILS glideslope for any other reason?
So why did it not occur, was the aircraft already slipping below gildeslope…
Also suggestions of late landing configuration (undercarriage) sounds a bit suspicious to me…
Yes, fuel was around port rear fuselage after coming to a stop, didn’t ignite probably due to damp/wet grass landing, conceret a different matter? (Has been very, very wet here now for weeks, maybe a blessing)
World record for shortest 77 landing by far.. just shows that concrete is not the choice surface for all emergency landings at high descent rates!!!
Partial thrust reverser deployment sounds like another theory
10. John Wentworth | January 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Captain was quoted as saying “the throttles did not respond to manual input” If the engines did not respond to either throttle the Throttle Lever Angle Resolvers or the EEC’s were not communicating. Could be software !!! Seen this before with Malasia Airlines, that is software. Software updates are not done “usually” in pairs. For a total loss of power the engines would have to be at sub-idle, and the aircraft woud of lost total power. That would mean the both IDG’s,BUG’s, and the APU would be off line. Low probability of that happening. The resolvers are powered from the onside EEC’s. The EEC’s have redundant power source of which the PMA is the primary. The AIMS cabnets,where the auto throttles reside, have multiple backups. They probably have a good idea of the problem right now…they have the digital flight data recorder which at slow speed records over 1500 data points. Sources very close to British Airways say that even on the inside BA is very closed lip about the incident. If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would bet Boeing has a pretty good idea of what caused the incident. Boeing is very good at what they do ! Lots of speculation….including fuel contamination. WOW…speculation get crazy.
11. John Wentworth | January 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
This will have a “”CHILLING”"effect of ETOPS….. if it is equipment!
12. John Wentworth | January 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
AND ALREADY HAS !
13. boeing777 | January 21st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Be sure to check out this thread.
14. John Wentworth | January 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The rudder position may give an indication as to which engine failed to accelerate, or went to sub idle first. The rudder is in an unnatural position for a plane skidding to the right. The pilot was probably stepping on the left rudder pedal. Once TAC has been activated the trim cannot be removed. TAC has 60 % authority.
15. Advantage: BA « BOE&hellip | January 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
[…] that the carrier was to press ahead with its own new premuim off-shoot, OpenSkies to the recent Boeing 777-200ER crash landing to the countdown to the big move over to Terminal 5 - British Airways is certainly walking into the […]
16. Joe Baker | February 7th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Has there been a determination as to the cause of this crash? Did they just run out of fuel?
17. John Stickelmaier | February 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Seems another blog brought up wax clogging the filters. All jet fuel contains parrafin wax. If I was a betting man, I would say the fuel was too cold during cruise, and/or the fuel had too much wax, and when the high fuel flow was required the wax caused a restriction in the filters.
18. British Airways Boeing 77&hellip | February 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
[…] 18, 2008 Further to the crash landing at London Heathrow Airport of a British Airways Boeing 777-200ER, the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch has today released new information on the cause of the […]
19. average joe | February 24th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Both engines fail at the same time? No fire at the crash site? The pilot obviously ran out of fuel and was attempting to land with a dry sump.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed