BA Flight lands short of Runway - Page 5

jkat · 19-01-2008, 16:20

uncanny, this is very simmilar! a320 fly-by-wire http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BxP8Lw...elated&search=

Arthurgray50@blu · 19-01-2008, 20:16

Hi Octal, if you live in the End End, then that is where the flight path starts, very near Canary Tower, l remember coming in that way once, and the view was gorgeous, the East End is a great place, l used to work in the area, and especially up the tower, and l can imagine if this plane got into trouble there, my god it would have been terrible, this is why for years, l have been saying that, we must have more hospitals, in the London area, to cater for this problem if it ever happened, can you imagine a 747, or even Concorde when it came in, a survey several years ago, carried out by The Sun, stated that IF a plane came down there, it would take TWO miles too stop, and as far as l know you only have two main hospitals in that area, one is the London, where the helicopter is and there is one just up the road from there going towards Whitechapel - there has to be more hospitals, just think, if the worse came to it, around Heathrow, you have only have Ashford (no AE) Chertsey, not big enough for a major incident, West Middlesex, l don't think could handle it, and Charing Cross - we need more

WHISTLED · 19-01-2008, 20:34

Quote:

a survey several years ago, carried out by The Sun, stated that IF a plane came down there, it would take TWO miles too stop

What would take 2 miles to stop and where? A plane crashing near canary wharf would take 2 miles to stop?

I dount it, look at the twin towers, the planes didnt even go through the building (large as they were) and they were powering up. Im certain it would be further in an area of housing but 2 miles is a long way

SMHarman · 19-01-2008, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHISTLED

What would take 2 miles to stop and where? A plane crashing near canary wharf would take 2 miles to stop?

I dount it, look at the twin towers, the planes didnt even go through the building (large as they were) and they were powering up. Im certain it would be further in an area of housing but 2 miles is a long way

Equally the A300 that went down on departure from JFK on Nov 12 2001

12 November 2001; American Airlines A300-600; Queens, New York: The aircraft was on a flight from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic when it crashed into a residential neighborhood just outside JFK airport. The aircraft experienced an in-flight breakup, with the vertical fin and one engine landing away from the main impact site. The crash damaged or destroyed several homes, and killed five people on the ground. Also killed were all nine crew members and 251 passengers on the aircraft, including five infants.

Didn't leave much of an impact on the ground, certainly not 2 miles of damage.

Octal · 19-01-2008, 20:59

Hi Arthurgray50@blu,

I don't live far from the Lambourne beacon in Essex and there are as many as 4 or 5 aircraft flying around the stack in the morning when the transatlantic ones come in and from Lambourne they fly over to the reservoirs in the Lee valley where they do a left turn then fly south for a few miles which pass over our house before turning right to pick up the runways at LHR, very impressive sitting out in our back garden on a summer morning watching them.

The problem with hospitals it doesn't make economic sense to have under capacity in case an emergency happens, it's much better to have major incident plans in place in case of such an event, unless you as a tax payer want to pay a lot more to the NHS. You will have to trust me on this, but those plans will work as happened on the 7/7 bombings. We had so many staff available we didn't know what to do with them all, thankfully they weren't needed, but it proved the system.

foreverwar · 19-01-2008, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

snippety snip snip snip... l don't think could handle it, and Charing Cross - we need more

Risk assessment is all about impact and likelihood - the impact of a plane landing in London (or any major conurbation) is high; likelyhood is extremely low.

Risk Management caters for chance of something happening, not worst-case scenario - otherwise no-one would get out of bed in the morning.

(btw, most accidents happen at home (allegedly)

)

BBKing · 20-01-2008, 16:43

Quote:

a survey several years ago, carried out by The Sun

That well-known aeronautical journal of repute. I call BS - a plane landing at Heathrow doesn't take two miles to land, the 777 on Wednesday took 1000ft without colliding with anything first. If the worst happened it would be concentrated in an area a few hundred feet across. What they've probably done is taken the maximum speed of a passenger aircraft and modelled it landing somewhere with no buildings. This is substantially different to an aircraft at approach or landing speed.

As for the hospital thing, you always build in more capacity than you need, which helps cope with unexpected outages (say an MRSA outbreak or an unserviceable operating theatre) or of course a major incident. One of the problems with recent PFI deals is cutting back on this extra, which is one of the causes of the Norfolk and Norwich patients-treated-in-ambulances incident before Christmas.

jkat · 21-01-2008, 11:35

Truth of the Heathrow crash - Flight computer malfunction!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=e84nv6pZu9o

BBKing · 21-01-2008, 14:03

The AAIB use MS Flight Simulator to solve plane crashes? Well I never.

I still want to know why the engine damage was so different.

jkat · 21-01-2008, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

The AAIB use MS Flight Simulator to solve plane crashes? Well I never.

I still want to know why the engine damage was so different.

yes some piccys here http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-evidence.html

r1ch · 21-01-2008, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

I still want to know why the engine damage was so different.

I think that both engines would have been windmilling so I'm fairly sure that both would have been turning when landing (and therefore still contain a fair amount of energy in momentum) so maybe the difference in damage to the fan blades is more due to the different routes that the engines plowed through the ground. If you take a look at the first pic here you can see that not only did engine #1 damage plow through the most ground, it would have also hit the concrete of the runway more directly. Looking at the images that jkat posted it also seems that there is more damage to the bottom of engine 1, so it would make sense that there would be more damage to the fan blades even if they were spinning at the same rate.

At the moment, my money is on a software or sensor problem, but then I'm a software developer so I naturally assume that the problems will lie there!

This airworthiness directive has been mentioned a lot on PPRuNe. It relates to a similar problem on 777s with GE rather than RR engines but maybe the RR engines have a similar flaw - this flight had taken a pretty chilly route in colder than usual conditions.

altis · 21-01-2008, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkat

yes some piccys here http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-evidence.html

Ah, those RATs can be a lifesaver...

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

Shame they've cut the bit about what could be clearly heard on the cockpit voice recorder when all the engines went quiet.

SMHarman · 24-01-2008, 15:44

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7206596.stm

'Engines running' in crash plane

Both engines of the British Airways jet that crash-landed at Heathrow Airport were still running when it came down, investigators have said.

zaax · 24-01-2008, 15:55

From what they are saying it sound like a fuel problem. Could dodgy fuel been loaded in China?

BBKing · 24-01-2008, 21:31

Interesting - the engines did fail asymmetrically, the right first, and were under power in the latter stages of the flight. Given that it wasn't the power required to keep the plane up, it's still an engine failure, but of the fuel or control systems.

The one whacky theory that still hasn't been knocked down is icing in the fuel - the conditions up top were particularly cold that day and all fuel contains some water, it's unavoidable. Interesting too that the AAIB put out an interim statement a long time before the next one was due, presumably to dampen speculation.

Has everyone already seen this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770