BA Flight lands short of Runway

[Arthurgray50@blu]

My only concern about this incident, was when l went past the accident, shortly after it happened, and l mean just minutes, WHY, was there planes, lining up to take off on the SAME runway, if BAA, knew that there was a plane on an SOS, coming in, and don't forget, the Prime Minister, was in one of them, l honestly thought that that undercarraige, had collapsed when it was turning to prepare for take off,

[Octal]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

My only concern about this incident, was when l went past the accident, shortly after it happened, and l mean just minutes, WHY, was there planes, lining up to take off on the SAME runway, if BAA, knew that there was a plane on an SOS, coming in, and don't forget, the Prime Minister, was in one of them, l honestly thought that that undercarraige, had collapsed when it was turning to prepare for take off,

At 140Knts which is about the approach speed for the 777 and about 2 miles from touchdown that gives about 40 seconds do decide what's wrong then decide weather it's a PAN or MAYDAY I think they had enough on their plate just trying to keep the plane in the air.

[SMHarman]

They crew never indicated Mayday, approach was apparantly normal until 2000m out.

[BBKing]

the Prime Minister, was in one of them

Which was still at T4, a kilometre or so away rather than on the runway. Didn't take off until about 14:30 I think. They started using 27L for takeoffs shortly afterwards, but all landings are on 27R as we know to our cost here, since we're not getting any rest from aircraft noise.

[Kevin T]

Now a loss of thrust is being blamed...

Link

[BBKing]

Now a loss of thrust is being blamed...

Investigated, I suspect. I read the report as saying that the engines failed to increase power when instructed, rather than losing power completely, but the pictures do suggest that different things happened to each engine. Either way, an engine that doesn't do what you tell it is an engine failure and thus highly serious when it's both of them.

[altis]

I wonder how they are going to move it now it's missing its wheels. Wiki claims the maximum take-off weight is something over 200 tonnes. I guess the unladen weight might be half that but it's still going to be heavy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

Perhaps they'll get International Rescue to bring in Thunderbird 2 with its pod of little remote control trucks.

[Hom3r]

They will bring in some heavy lift cranes/jacks (look like giant yellow axle stands) raise the plane high enough to put a flat loader under it.

They can shift several thousand of tons of oil rigs so a 200 ton jet is a kid toy.

[Kevin T]

Originally Posted by altis

I wonder how they are going to move it now it's missing its wheels. Wiki claims the maximum take-off weight is something over 200 tonnes. I guess the unladen weight might be half that but it's still going to be heavy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

Perhaps they'll get International Rescue to bring in Thunderbird 2 with its pod of little remote control trucks.

Some conjecture here...

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Some conjecture here...

Thought the comments about the seating and interior wierd. After all BA have complete spare sets of F and C seats so when they come in for maintainance they can just swap the seating in and out in a number of hours and then work on the now spare set at a more leisurely pace.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I have just heard on the news, that the plane ran into trouble, two miles out, my house was directly underneath that, what ever the problem was, hopefully the two boxes on the plane will reveal what happened.

[Octal]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I have just heard on the news, that the plane ran into trouble, two miles out, my house was directly underneath that, what ever the problem was, hopefully the two boxes on the plane will reveal what happened.

I'm sure it will, that must have been quite worrying for you. I live in east London and they go over us at about 6000 feet and that's bad enough.

[foreverwar]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I have just heard on the news, that the plane ran into trouble, two miles out, my house was directly underneath that, what ever the problem was, hopefully the two boxes on the plane will reveal what happened.

Understand your concern, but unless someone built a very high brick wall, it was unlikely to fall on your home.

If I had been a bit further along the flight path I may have been sweating a bit, though.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by altis

Perhaps they'll get International Rescue to bring in Thunderbird 2 with its pod of little remote control trucks.

He He. I've just been watching Thunderbirds. T2 has a grab arm that could just pick it up and fly the whole thing out of the way.

OT - BTW did you know they have remastered Thunderbirds from the original film stock into HD. Wow it is amazing to see HD Thunderbirds. Makes you realise the quality of film stock and how sad some of the stuff recorded onto tape in the 70s and 80s will look in a few years. Thunderbirds is so crisp and sharp and yes here in NJ we have enough HD channels that they have time and bandwidth to show Thunderbirds in HD!

[BBKing]

Demand on pprune has finally gone down enough to get one - I like this comment, one of the first on the accident:

It touched down on the grass, short of the runway and stopped on the piano keys. That was not the plan.

Quite. It occured to me overnight that the reason the starboard engine has more dirt in it is that the undercarriage came off completely on that side, so the engine was taking all the weight and thus digging in more. This also explains the swing to starboard. The port side wheels stayed with the aircraft. Given that, it's even more interesting why the port engine fan is more badly damaged.