Newsstand - Heathrow jet lands short of runway

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/17/heathrow.incident/index.html

I'm glad I'm not flying into or out of LHR today.

Wow that looks really scary! Glad it didn't go up in flames. I guess they knew there was a problem since it was an "emergency landing".

BIG discussion going on over in the ba forum as well: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=780194

Wow that looks really scary! Glad it didn't go up in flames.

Not to speculate on what happened this time, but, to look on the Happy :) Side of things: Bad News: Planes that run out of fuel tend to land short. Good News: planes that crash after running out of fuel tend to have little or no fires after crashing.

" Sources " are reporting both engines failed at 400 feet .
Out of fuel ?

is it wrong that the first thing that stuck out for me was that there were only 136 pax on a 777? That's not even half capacity.

Out of fuel ?



.... that sucking sound on short final...? It has happened before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_254
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Just 137 pax on a 777 really jumped out at me too. And I thought the reports of safely landing just short of the runway had to be wrong: overshooting a runway maybe, but if a plane lands on something before the runway, it will be a disaster, I thought. Obviously wrong, judging by the photos and the "skid marks" in the grass.

As mentioned in the other thread, BA's 777s hold only around 220 pax due to the 4 cabin config.

As the BA Thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=780194) has now reached 25 pages, might I suggest that we continue posting news articles here as a central resource for those interested. Discussion can be restricted to the BA Thread.

CNN: Heathrow crash plane 'just dropped' (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/17/heathrow.incident/index.html) (from the OP)
New York Times: Jetliner Crashes at Heathrow; 8 Hurt (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Britain-Plane.html)
BBC News: Airline crash-lands at Heathrow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm)
Sky News: Airliner Crash Landing is Probed (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1301161,00.html)
MSNBC: Passenger jet crash lands at Heathrow (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22706026/)
Bloomberg: British Airways 777 Crash Lands at Heathrow; 19 Hurt (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aR3IWzgY1eec&refer=home)
Daily Mail: Boeing 777 that crash landed at Heathrow is one of the safest aeroplanes in the world, say experts (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508869&in_page_id=1770)

Next round of articles:

CNN: Heathrow crash probe underway (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/18/heathrow.incident/index.html)
New York Times: Crash landing temporarily paralyzes Heathrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/world/europe/18heathrow_web.html?ref=world)
BBC: Experts probe Heathrow air crash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7195298.stm)
Sky News: BA crash pilot is hailed a hero (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1301238,00.html)
Bloomberg: Heathrow operations returning to normal after jumbo jet crash (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aXAWaWYfAiAk&refer=worldwide)
Daily Mail: Hero BA pilot quizzed for five hours after Heathrow crash - then takes crew for a curry (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508839&in_page_id=1770&ct=5)
striking stat in the last article: out of 13 injured, 4 were crew members

The Mirror (UK): http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/01/18/i-ve-lost-power-i-ll-glide-her-in-89520-20289245/

No thrust when the throttles were advanced

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7196962.stm

No thrust when the throttles were advance

That ought to keep the Boeing engineers busy for a while.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/17/heathrow.incident/index.html

I'm glad I'm not flying into or out of LHR today.

I'm glad I'm not flying into or out of LHR any day

That ought to keep the Boeing engineers busy for a while.
Or Rolls Royce, or the folk who fuelled the plane

Latest updates – Senior First Officer John Coward was at controls

CNN: Two engines 'did not respond' (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/18/heathrow.incident/index.html) (post #11 story updated)
BBC: 'No thrust' on stricken BA plane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7196962.stm) (posted above by alanR)
Sky News: Crash Pilot 30 Seconds From Disaster (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1301238,00.html) (post #11 story updated)
Sky News: BA Jet Engines Failed Two Miles Out (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1301371,00.html)
Bloomberg: Heathrow Crash Caused by Power Failure, Officials Say (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a8FJVO0jEglE&refer=uk)
Daily Mail: A hero called Coward: BA pilot declares it was his deputy who landed stricken flight (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508839&in_page_id=1770&ct=5) (post #11 story updated)
Daily Mail: Read the text of the initial report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) on the crash land at Heathrow here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509143&in_page_id=1770)

First good news for Boeing this year: BA has to buy another 777!

First good news for Boeing this year: BA has to buy another 777!

not necessarily, Ba could choose to replace this aircraft with an Airbus one...(A330, A340, A350XWB etc.)

A few more updates - Plane removed from runway

BBC: Crashed jet removed from runway (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7198732.stm)
BBC: BA pilot 'feared all would die (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7198598.stm)
BBC: In full: AAIB initial statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7196945.stm)
Sky News: Hero Crash Pilot: 'I Feared Catastrophe' (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1301438,00.html)
Bloomberg: BA's Crashed Boeing 777 to Be Moved for Further Investigation (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aA1feYu_0EUQ&refer=uk)
Daily Mail: I thank the Man Upstairs, says Heathrow crash hero John Coward (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509325&in_page_id=1770)

From Sat, 19 Jan
CNN: Heathrow back on track after crash (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/19/heathrow.incident/index.html)
New York Times: Inquiry Finds Power Failure in London Jumbo Jet Crash (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/world/europe/19heathrow.html?scp=1&sq=heathrow)

News of the World (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2001_hero_pilot_romp.shtml)

News of the World (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2001_hero_pilot_romp.shtml)

Ever so lovely to find out how Perfect Peter really got his name. :p

That pilot is being considered a hero, and he did really well to land that plane. But should he have noticed the fuel issue before take off? Or did the fuel leak?

That pilot is being considered a hero, and he did really well to land that plane. But should he have noticed the fuel issue before take off? Or did the fuel leak?

I'm not sure what you mean. :confused: There is no evidence of which I am aware that the plane simply ran out of fuel. Indeed, the cited articles state that was fuel leakage after the crash, indicating that there was, indeed fuel onboard. If you have additional information, please post it.

Some more general interest/review pieces and good reminders on how to evacuate a plane and use the slide properly. Again NO evidence of fuel starvation:

MSNBC: Wreckage of Heathrow crash landing cleared (21 Jan 08) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22762304/)
USA Today: Crash of popular Boeing 777 scrutinized (22 Jan 08) (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-01-22-heathrow_N.htm)
Telegraph: Boeing 777s had six other engine failures (23 Jan 08) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/24/nboeing124.xml)

Time: How to Escape Down an Airplane Slide — and Still Make Your Connection! (23 Jan 08) (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706188,00.html)

That pilot is being considered a hero, and he did really well to land that plane. But should he have noticed the fuel issue before take off? Or did the fuel leak?

They are checking the fuel feed system - but the plane had plenty of fuel

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2490190620080124

The engines were running and producing power all the way to touchdown. The problem was that they weren't producing ENOUGH power and they did not respond to requests for more power from either the auto-throttle system nor the pilot's input. They have not yet determined why the engines did not respond.

Current investigation focusing on possible water/ice contamination in fuel system:

Wall Street Journal: Fuel Problem Suspected In U.K. Crash Landing (2 Feb 08) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120191816911237261.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Bloomberg: British Airways Crash Investigators Probe Fuel Flow to Engines (24 Jan 08) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aBXenogcO6CQ&refer=uk)
Daily Mail: Was Heathrow crash plane downed by fuel fault? (24 Jan 08) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=510078&in_page_id=1770)
BBC: The mystery of flight BA038 (24 Jan 08) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7208126.stm)

(To view the entire WSJ article, try doing a Google News search for 'British Airways Crash' and clicking on the link from there.)

If that's what the problem turns out to have been, I'd say they were very fortunate it developed so close to ground. If it had developed at cruising altitude, the result would have been horrific.

If that's what the problem turns out to have been, I'd say they were very fortunate it developed so close to ground. If it had developed at cruising altitude, the result would have been horrific.

Actually, the cases where all engines have been lost at altitude have usually turned out much better than they did in this case in that the airplanes had little, or no, damage. I'm thinking specifically of the Air Canada B767, Air Transit A330, and a B737 in Louisiana (forget the airline, from Latin American, I think).

If do to ice in the fuel, the failure was most likely to occur at idle power settings and the higher fuel flows at cruise power would act to keep the fuel lines open as a fast running river is less likely to freeze over than a lazy brook.

Airplanes already have protections for fuel icing so if this is the cause it will be important to find out why they proved inadequate in this case. Very cold fuel is quite normal, especially on the long-haul flights typically flown by the B777.

If that's what the problem turns out to have been, I'd say they were very fortunate it developed so close to ground. If it had developed at cruising altitude, the result would have been horrific.
Exactly the opposite - the pilots didn't have a lot of time or choices, if they'd picked the wrong option then we would be talking about hundreds dead - both in the flight & on the ground.

With tens of thousands of feet of height and several hundred mph the pilots will have had a lot of choice in what to do and where to go

Google the Gimli Glider for an example

Nothing new on the crash investigation, but the inevitable lawsuits have started:

Daily Mail: 'Traumatised' victims of Heathrow jet crash to sue British Airways for millions (4 Feb 08) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512184&in_page_id=1770)
Telegraph: Heathrow crash victims 'to sue' (5 Feb 08) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/04/nheathrow104.xml)
Mirror: British Airways could be sued for £11m by Heathrow jet crash passengers (5 Feb 08) (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/05/british-airways-could-be-sued-for-11m-by-heathrow-jet-crash-passengers-89520-20309750/)
BBC: Passenger sues over crash landing (8 Feb 08) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7234220.stm)

Also, related safety studies prompted at UA and AA:

Wall Street Journal: United, American Plan Safety Push After Icing Linked to British Crash (12 Feb 08) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277026942260315.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Something new on the investigation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251435.stm

No engine defects
No bird ingestion
Fuel was plentiful and wasn't contaminated

BOTH fuel pumps had damage

A friend in Britain mentioned he had seen one news report (soon after the crash) that one theory was that Gordon Brown's plane - which was at LHR with GB on it at the time - had avionics jamming equipment which had been turned on.

Is this even in the realm of possibility? What is the effect of jamming?

With flights taking off and landing every 15 seconds at LHR what are the chances of any jamming affecting only one plane

With flights taking off and landing every 15 seconds at LHR what are the chances of any jamming affecting only one plane

Very, very, very small. Also, jamming would potentially affect the instruments and the ability of the plane to determine where it is relative to the beacon at the airport and thus affect the IFR landing, but should affect things like the throttle, which seems to be what failed in this case. The pilots clearly knew that they were short and the plane didn't respond to their efforts on the controls. That isn't something that could be effected via jamming from an external source unless it was something like an EMP that destroyed all the electronics wholesale.

A similar throttle response incident was reported on an AA 777 on final approach to LAX yesterday:

FlightGlobal: American investigates as 777 engine fails to respond to throttle (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/29/221923/american-investigates-as-777-engine-fails-to-respond-to-throttle.html)

Discussion thread in AA Forum:

Brief engine throttle response failure AA299 -- 2/28/08 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=796294)

In reading the thread subject, wouldn't that be considered a "crash"? Kind of like a "water landing" would be a crash?