BA 777 lands short of runway at Heathrow

Not to make light of the situation, but this passengers quote is priceless.

"There was no indication that we were going to have a bad landing," he said. "When we hit the ground it was extremely rough, but I've had rough landings before and I thought 'This is the roughest I've had.'

"Then the emergency exits were opened and we were all told we should go through as quickly as possible, and the moment I was away from the plane I started to realize that the undercarriage was away, and we had missed the runway.

Jerome Ensinck, a passenger aboard the flight

Looking at pictues of the tail of the aircraft It looks as if the APU door is open , meaning it was started or in the process of being started.

Phil is right , the lack of fire is interesting ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHG750R

Phil is right , the lack of fire is interesting ...

---

I thought the same thing. The fire trucks started spraying immediately, but there was no mention of any serious fire. Given the condition of the wings and engine mounts, that screams fuel exhaustion. But I'm not entirely sure how one could run a 777 out of fuel without realizing it, unless there was something wrong with the fuel pumps or the system that measures the fuel...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eric8669

Not to make light of the situation, but this passengers quote is priceless.

"There was no indication that we were going to have a bad landing," he said. "When we hit the ground it was extremely rough, but I've had rough landings before and I thought 'This is the roughest I've had.'

"Then the emergency exits were opened and we were all told we should go through as quickly as possible, and the moment I was away from the plane I started to realize that the undercarriage was away, and we had missed the runway.

Jerome Ensinck, a passenger aboard the flight

---

Well considering the damage to the plane, this exhibits one helluva job on the pilots' end. Thank god there was no panic or serious injuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

With no fire like that, fuel (or lack thereof) could be the culprit.

---

That's what I was thinking... Beijing to London is a pretty long ways....

Quote:

---

Phil is right , the lack of fire is interesting ...That's what I was thinking... Beijing to London is a pretty long ways....

---

Would explain an awful lot. I can't imagine though that a BA Capt would not have declared a fuel emergency and went through proper procedure to get that plane down quickly before she ran dry. Still a chance that there was enough fuel and he didn't hit hard enough to ignite anything but this is sure hinky.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...7689/img/1.jpg

how do you do that much damage to the wing root? WOW!! anyone know the reg?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cancidas

how do you do that much damage to the wing root? WOW!! anyone know the reg?

---

It was YMMM, I think I have a photo of it somewhere here. Gotta dig it up.

It's G-YMMM according to Aviation-safety.net

That looks like they maingear coming up thru the wing. Evidence of a very hard touchdown..

Looks like the main cause of the wing route damage was the left landing gear! If you look at the damage you can clearly see it went straight up into the wing.

Hard to believe they would just run it out of gas without knowing about it and diverting if it was going to be that close - they should have had enough not only to make it to London, but for holding/wx divert as well. If they were that far behind the fuel curve, they should have done something before short final.

I don't make too much of the fact that there was no fire. Obviously I don't know what the underside looks like, but the damage to the wings look to be contained to the area above the gear, where it came through the wing. There shouldn't be any fuel in that area - it's the wheel well, the fuel tanks aren't in that area. The engines are designed to break away, without tearing up the wing, and it looks like they did that. All in all, if there is fuel on board, I'm not surprised there was no fire.

This is a puzzle.

I doubt it was fuel starvation. The chances of the bird running out of fuel on a final approach after flying all the way from PEK without incident are slim to none. The 777 gets real angry when it thinks it might get thirsty.

The 777 runs on an AIMS (Aircraft Information Management System) - further, it has two redundant AIMS systems (left and right). The 777 is also very "aware" of all aspects of all phases of flight.

Even IF you loose both motors - even on final - standby 115 VAC is available and will power vital systems.

We're looking at something more complex here than simple "fuel starvation." A catastrophic systems failure - synonymous with a computer "crash" - is what I'm leaning towards.

If I am not mistaken in previous cases of fuel starvation I can never remember two or both engines quiting at exactly the same time, maybe within a minute or two of each other, but never exactly together.

I saw one quote on the news last night I really liked. I believe it was from the airport worker who was planeside and the Captain told about loosing all power and instruments. He said the pilots deserve a medal as "BIG AS A FRYING PAN" with a great British accent. Never heard that one before but IMO what a great and fitting line !

Cheers

LGA777

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 700633.ece

Looks like computer failure is being blamed.

Though the computer made the nose come up, is that something the pilot was able to counteract with a forward push or was the plane doing its own thing regardless? I assume the plane leveled before tuoching down, as coming down on the tail would have ripped the plane open, no?

Computer failure raises many questions about the future of airline travel, I think. I think about that Air France A320 crash and people will wonder if we're relying on them too much.