777 down.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This one was a series of unbelievable events and decisions.

I have never met a sane pilot who would continue an international flight to destination when the gear wouldn't retract after take-off ... Insane decision. Fly round a bit, dump/burn fuel and land at departure airport or somewhere equally close en-route is the text book decision.

Then, to rely on fuel management systems and not carry out basic dead reckoning fuel calculations with allowances for gear-out drag and diversion contingency at the destination simply beggars belief.

The pilot must have either been drunk or on drugs IMO :LOL:

MW
 
Sponsored Links
They did a 'Seconds from Disaster' on Discovery about the Eric Moody incident. Apparently it didn't show on radar as the radar picks up water droplets.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Pilots since have been trained to recognise the onset of the phenomena ... Which, as it happens, is quite dramatic ... Like a firework display coming at you at great speed :LOL:

Understandable that Cap'n Moody didn't know what it was though as he was the first to witness it.

They were lucky that the deposits broke free from the turbine blades as the engines windmilled during the descent thus enabling the engines to be restarted and that they had enough height to deal with the problem.

Height is the key factor to survival in many incidents which is why the take-off phase is the most dangerous aspect of any flight.

MW
 
AAIB initial statement said:
...At approximately 600ft and two miles from touch down, the autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines, but the engines did not respond.

Following further demands for increased thrust from the autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond.

The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface...
Click to expand...

--
 
This has distinct similarities to the Airbus incident as the pilot maintains to this day that he called for power long before the engines responded and began to spool up ... By the time they did it was too late.

I'll lay odds that, once this incident has been investigated fully, the pilots get criticised for not disengaging the autopilot early enough and calling for thrust manually ... You heard it here first ;)

MW
 
Sponsored Links
I remember the footage of that Airbus crash. You could hear the engines spooling down as the plane was dropping towards the the tree tops. I think they could be heard to respond just before impact.

I never believed the official explanation. That plane looked like it was following a pre-programmed landing.


A witnesses to the Heathrow accident said the 777 which passed over them very low was making a loud noise. Hard to judge what would sound 'loud' when the most powerful engines in civil aviation are giving you a haircut.
 
Hmmm...

...In August of 2005, a Malaysia Airlines flight with 177 passengers on board were treated to a roller coaster ride when the Boeing 777 took on a mind of its own and suddenly started climbing. It had soared an additional 3,000 feet before the pilot managed to gain control by disconnecting the autopilot. He nosed the plane gently downward - only to have the plane lurch into a steep dive when he attempted to re-engage the autopilot. The captain throttled back the plane's engines in an effort to slow the rate of descent, only to have the plane power back into another steep climb on its own.
The crew finally managed to settle the plane down and flew their charges safely back to Perth, Australia.
The investigation centred on the air data inertial reference unit, which collects navigational and other data and feeds it to the plane's primary flight computers. In the case of Flight MH124, incorrect acceleration data from a believed fail-safe device was fed to the plane, which caused the erratic behaviour.
In this case the pilots responded correctly and safely, and it appears that the incident is an isolated one, with 525 Boeing 777s in service having 10 million flight hours and two million landings without seeing this kind of problem - a problem that amounted to a software glitch...
Click to expand...

More on that :-
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.05.html#subj1


Chance in a million?
:(
 
megawatt said:
I'll lay odds that, once this incident has been investigated fully, the pilots get criticised for not disengaging the autopilot early enough and calling for thrust manually ... You heard it here first ;)

MW
Click to expand...
and what do you reckon,would that criticism be justified?
 
empip said:
http://www.bleedingedge.com.au/blog/archives/2005/09/software_hijack.html

http://bleedingedge.com.au/blog/archives/2005/09/software_hijacks_jet_airliner.html

A slight difference, the first, from previous post appears to be a broken link... :cool:
Click to expand...

The previous one I was referring to was http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.05.html#subj1
Can't see http://www.bleedingedge.com.au/blog/archives/2005/09/software_hijack.html in a previous post.
There are broken links in the ones that work though. The pages linked to on atsb.gov.au don't exist...


My point is that the 777 has an excellent safety record. It has been around for more than a decade during which time it has been top banana. There have been 'incidents' but very few, and what aircraft type hasn't had incidents recorded.
 
With regard to the Paris Air Show crash, this:

The Black Boxes were taken undamaged from the aircraft 2 hours after the crash, but unfortunately they have been out of control of justice for 10 days, and since May 1998 it is proven that the Flight Data Recorder was substituted during this period. The Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) comes to the conclusion that the Black Boxes used in the trial to declare the pilot guilty are NOT the ones taken from the aircraft.

Captain Asseline flew the aircraft manually. He had been instructed by Air France to overfly the airfield at 100 ft above ground. When he increased throttle to level off at 100 ft, the engines did not respond. So after some seconds he got worried and thought there was something like a short-circuit in the completely computerized throttle control. So he pulled the throttle back all the way and forth again. By that time the aircraft had touched the trees.

After the accident, Captain Asseline was very astonished when he saw on an amateur video tape that the gear was only 30 ft above ground when the aircraft was passing over the runway. He affirms the altimeter of the Airbus A320 indicated 100 ft.



From here: http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml#crash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

empip
Mobile phone in flight
Replies
8
Views
711
tim west
T
empip
777 engine fails to respond to throttle...
Replies
1
Views
582
thompsk
T
empip
BA Las Vegas - Engine fire
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
empip
empip
securespark
MH17
4 5 6
Replies
88
Views
5K
ladylola
ladylola
securespark
MAS Flight Number MH 370
6 7 8
Replies
111
Views
9K
securespark
securespark
Back
Top