777 down.

[megawatt]

and what do you reckon,would that criticism be justified?

I wouldn't say so without further information as instinct from such experienced pilots in this critical phase of the flight would be to switch to manual control and eliminate any possible external influences.

They were on final approach, in clear sight of the field and wouldn't have needed any avionics to make a safe approach and landing manually.

Much depends on what the SOP's say though as pilots nowadays are trained to follow them to the letter in emergences.

I think that this will turn out to be one of those chance in a million occasions where a number of unexpected events, each with a low probability of happening on their own, have happened simultaneously.

Lessons will be learnt and the industry will become even safer as a result.

Would I cancel my holiday if I got to the airport and discovered that I was booked on a 777? ... Not on your life

MW

 

[megawatt]

There are still lots of unanswered questions surrounding the Paris Airbus's attempt to plough a new runway in the woods and I doubt we will ever get to the truth on this one now.

My opinion (for what its worth) is that this was a cover up by the French authorities and not pilot error.

Airbus industries have an excellent safety record, however, so it could be argued that they learnt from the experience to the benefit of us all.

I bet they had all their staff working around the clock on this incident until it was resolved and had them all sign in blood never to reveal what they discovered.

MW

 

[empip]

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...

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.

Please note..
The 'previous post' was
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.05.html#subj1

Software hijacks jet airliner ... again?
<"Charles Wright" <[email protected]>>
Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:26:11 +1000

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

*The Australian* (17 Sep 2005) has a chilling story about the pilots of a
Malaysian Airlines 777 flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur last month battling
to regain control after an "unknown computer error" caused the aircraft to
pitch violently, and brought it close to stalling.

The highlighted address, above, is a broken link... As you would agree :-
http://bleedingedge.com.au/blog/archives/2005/09/software_hijacks_jet_airliner.html
Is the corrected link.

Some go to great lengths in protecting their no loss record..

...Qantas is one of the safest airlines in the world with a record of zero fatalities in its many years of operation. However, one of its Boeing 747 was involved in an accident during a landing in Bangkok. Although there were no fatalities, the damage to the airplane was quite extensive. Instead of writing off the hull that would be cheaper, it appears that Qantas decided to repair the airplane to maintain a zero hull loss record!...

Hull loss is seen as a bad thing.

 

[blondini]

Looks like the 777 may now have one hull loss. Can't see them putting that back in the air.

Completely agree with Megawatt about the Paris Airbus crash. Except maybe for the blood signatures

 

[megawatt]

[code:1]Looks like the 777 may now have one hull loss. Can't see them putting that back in the air. [/code:1]
You'd be gobsmackingly gobsmacked at what can be repaired

I saw a Tristar years ago which had landed so heavily (crashed would have been a better description to be honest) that it cracked both its wing spars.

Now, when I say cracked, the cracks were so big that I could damn near climb through them into the wing fuel tanks ... It was repaired (took over 18 months) and is still flying today to the best of my knowledge

Aircraft are structurally far more robust than people think and the decision will be based on the accelerometer readings and much stress testing.

Throwing away a fuselage is the last thing they will want to do ... Mega £'s

Incidentally, the Tristar was aircrew error ... Flown by a t**t (and he's still flying also)

MW

 

[joe-90]

Could this Heathrow crash be pilot error?

I remember the captain of the crash at Kegworth was hailed a hero for a week until they found out he shut down the wrong engine.

The chances of the engines dying just at the final approach (both of them) is greater odds than doing the lottery. Yes I know that someone always wins the lottery, but is it possible?

 

[2scoops0406]

- a problem that amounted to a software glitch...

Running MS Vista, no doubt...

Safest software to use, the plane would never take off.

 

[megawatt]

All accidents could be pilot error Joe

I wouldn't think so in this case though as this is one phase of a flight where everyone's concentration is generally at its best.

Water in the fuel is the best simple theory I've heard from the press to date as they were quite low on fuel I believe following holding patterns and water is always at the bottom of the tanks so the lower you get on fuel the more likely you are to suffer problems particularly at low thrust settings.

Incidentally, it was the first officer who shut down the wrong engine at Kegworth (not that it matters ... Unless you were the first officer of course )

MW

 

[joe-90]

From documentaries I've seen on aviation disasters the pilots would have had a low fuel alarm way before you get to the dregs at the bottom of the tank. Even a Ford Escort will tell you that much. I would also have thought that during a regular service this would have been routinely emptied.
Another thing I've just thought of is that the main tanks are in the wings so wouldn't the likelihood be that even if it was water it would only effect one engine not both (even though I realise that there is a balancing valve shifting fuel from one tank to the other) the chance that the same thing would happen to each at the same instant with out any misfiring way before cutting out was extremely unlikely. Even the differing amounts of fuel in the pipes to the engine would allow one engine to run a fraction longer than the other.
I still think it was some kind of kill switch or something that acted as a kill switch to make them both shut off instantly. I may be talking bolex but I doubt it.

 

[noseall]

perhaps the linkage from their throttle lever in the cockpit, to the engines, was faulty.

see, i've sussed it.

 

[megawatt]

From documentaries I've seen on aviation disasters the pilots would have had a low fuel alarm way before you get to the dregs at the bottom of the tank.

Nope, the fuel mixes with the water and its just the percentage of the mix which causes problems at low thrust settings.

Even a Ford Escort will tell you that much.

I don't think so Joe, try filling half your tank with water and see what the fuel guage tells you ... Engine won't like it much either way

I would also have thought that during a regular service this would have been routinely emptied.

Water drain checks should be carried out as part of the before flight inspection ... People f**k up though.

Another thing I've just thought of is that the main tanks are in the wings so wouldn't the likelihood be that even if it was water it would only effect one engine not both (even though I realise that there is a balancing valve shifting fuel from one tank to the other) the chance that the same thing would happen to each at the same instant with out any misfiring way before cutting out was extremely unlikely.

If it were a high percentage of water it would affect the entire system. Gas turbines don't misfire BTW though they can stall & surge

Even the differing amounts of fuel in the pipes to the engine would allow one engine to run a fraction longer than the other.

Possibly

I still think it was some kind of kill switch or something that acted as a kill switch to make them both shut off instantly. I may be talking bolex but I doubt it.

Not likely to be a kill switch but I get your drift and you may well be right.

I'm not saying that water was the likely cause Joe I just think its the most plausible simple theory they've come up with to date.

It may have a very complex cause and it will be interesting to see what it is when they finally work it out.

MW

 

[Richardp]

Shame! it was starting to look like we'd solved it there for a mo

 

[narkeybee]

All makes interesting reading, but my bet would be a bird strike, something as simple as that... goosed by a goose!

 

[megawatt]

We'd know by now if it had been a bird strike.

Besides, it would take a flock of frozen Bernard Matthews prize birds to simultaneously kill two Trents ... And the pilots would definitely have noticed that

 

[narkeybee]

Mega, you are probably right.
I liked the bit where the captain made sure everyone knew it was the co-pilot who was at the controls........just in case there is any blame to come!.
Don't be surprised if a terrorist group claim it was them, or perhaps we would have heard of that by now