Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 LHR Incident  
User currently offlineA/c train From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 501 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5236 times:

Whats the gen on this, has anyone got any factual knowledge about what actually happend to this 777, listening to the news this morning, and I quote '' The captain deployed the trailing edge flaps during the approach, this helped to save this from being a far worse crash '' .
Now , I dont knock the captain because he wouldnt be a captain if he wasnt worth his weight but im sorry, after a few months there must be a little bit more to report than that ! that report was daft !

any decent input ?

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSimProgrammer From France, joined Aug 2004, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

Based on what we know so far, there’s nothing wrong with the plane or how the pilot operated it plus we have a 777 with a squeaky-clean safety record. Something must have interfered with the aircrafts avionics & we’ll probably never hear the truth, here’s why.

At the time of the crash, PM Gordon Brown’s convoy was passing the area en-route to LHR VIP terminal to board a VS A340 to Beijing. Anti-terror measures are paramount for heads of government in transit and it's not uncommon to employ the use of radio jamming devices.

I suggest the invistagators start looking at who supplies radio jamming equipment to the UK, talk to Boeing and arrange for a T7 & test pilot to operate it on short finals on a long runway (Edwards or Shannon) and fire the radio jammer from the same distance between G-YMMM and the point on the A30 the convoy would have been.

Anyone have a better suggestion?



Drive a bus, an Airbus, easier than a London bus!
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6846 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5226 times:



Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 1):
I suggest the invistagators start looking at who supplies radio jamming equipment to the UK, talk to Boeing and arrange for a T7 & test pilot to operate it on short finals on a long runway (Edwards or Shannon) and fire the radio jammer from the same distance between G-YMMM and the point on the A30 the convoy would have been.

Anyone have a better suggestion?

If this was likely to be problem, if indeed they'd already flight tested it, then I'd imagine that they'll be keeping very quiet about it. Who needs a SAM when you just need a comms jammer?



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5179 times:

Considering the amount of EMC tests every part of the aircraft has to "suffer" I highly doubt any radio jamming would be possibly able to crash a T7 the way it did in LHR.
Furthermore, I really don't see the connection between radio jamming and the plane landing short.
Pls explain, and not only by saying avionics have been disordered.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5170 times:



Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 1):
I suggest the invistagators start looking at who supplies radio jamming equipment to the UK, talk to Boeing and arrange for a T7 & test pilot to operate it on short finals on a long runway (Edwards or Shannon) and fire the radio jammer from the same distance between G-YMMM and the point on the A30 the convoy would have been.

Anyone have a better suggestion?

Come on, this has been beat to death. IIRC, the AAIB answered this issue already. Time to get the metal foil out and make hats!


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5160 times:



Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 1):
Anti-terror measures are paramount for heads of government in transit and it's not uncommon to employ the use of radio jamming devices.

Pardon my ignorance but I thought radio jamming was used to prevent certain frequencies from being used at all for voice traffic, missile guidance and radar, etc. I also thought security of communication on a particular frequency was achieved by such methods as encrytion. My question, therefore, is would the PM's radio communication be protected by a device that sends powerful jamming signals out into the immediate surroundings? If so, is it likely that they'd be in the habit of using it in heavily populated areas?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
Come on, this has been beat to death. IIRC, the AAIB answered this issue already.

Yes, that's what I thought.


User currently offlineGkyip From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 1):
At the time of the crash, PM Gordon Brown’s convoy was passing the area en-route to LHR VIP terminal to board a VS A340 to Beijing. Anti-terror measures are paramount for heads of government in transit and it's not uncommon to employ the use of radio jamming devices.

Wasn't he boarding a BA 744 with Richard Branson aboard? This is fascinating, are we talking terrorism?

Gary



The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee
User currently offlinePoint8six From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

He was boarding the next BA flight to Beijing - another B777 and Sir Richard Branson was part of the UK trade delegation. As far as I know, the UK AAIB are not considering terrorism as a reason for the interruption of fuel flowing to the 2 engines.

User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2858 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4977 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
Time to get the metal foil out and make hats!

And don't forget to wrap it around your ankles, too!


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4969 times:



Quoting Gkyip (Reply 6):
Wasn't he boarding a BA 744 with Richard Branson aboard? This is fascinating, are we talking terrorism?

This is unfounded conspiracy theory talk, nothing more. Pure coincidence that a bunch of VIPs happened to be around.

[speculation]
The problem is most likely to be due to a common issue in the FADECs, possibly due to water contamination or icing of FADEC air data sensors. This has happened on GE90 powered 777s, so Trents might be similarly vulnerable. The AAIB appear to have ruled out fuel contamination or waxing.
[/speculation]



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3600 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4954 times:



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 9):
The problem is most likely to be due to a common issue in the FADECs, possibly due to water contamination or icing of FADEC air data sensors.

The AAIB have said that the incident appears to have been caused by blockages in the fuel lines upstream of the high pressure pumps. See this thread.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/3978848/

The FADEC's have been given a clean bill of health as they and the fuel control valves responded appropriately.

Nothing definitive on what caused the blockages though.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Hey, how about some kind of news link.

Those of us living more than fifty miles from London have no idea what you are talking about.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3600 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4938 times:



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 11):
Hey, how about some kind of news link.

Here's one:

http://www.flightglobal.com/home/default.aspx



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3600 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4911 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 12):
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 11):
Hey, how about some kind of news link.

Here's one:

http://www.flightglobal.com/home/def....aspx

That didn't work out as planned.

Try this instead.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...o-understand-fuel-restriction.html



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2577 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4836 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 10):
The AAIB have said that the incident appears to have been caused by blockages in the fuel lines upstream of the high pressure pumps. See this thread.

Thanks for that link. I had searched flightglobal for the latest info this morning, but I didn't find that. Search engines are great if you put in the right keywords.  Wink



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4798 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting David L (Reply 5):
Pardon my ignorance but I thought radio jamming was used to prevent certain frequencies from being used at all for voice traffic, missile guidance and radar, etc. I also thought security of communication on a particular frequency was achieved by such methods as encrytion. My question, therefore, is would the PM's radio communication be protected by a device that sends powerful jamming signals out into the immediate surroundings? If so, is it likely that they'd be in the habit of using it in heavily populated areas?

While I have no idea if PM Brown's escorts were using any jammers or not, or if they do so regularly, they are used with some frequency. Specifically relatively short range jamming of cell phone frequencies, and common civilian radio frequencies is common. A cell phone is a favorite bomb detonator.

OTOH, these all tend to be fairly short range, and so the power output levels are fairly low. The only thing you have to do is overpower the "real" signal at the point where the receiver you're jamming is (note: contrary to popular perceptions, you jam *receivers* - not the transmission itself or the transmitter - the point is to inject enough noise into the receiver that it makes the "real" signal unreadable).

Let's say you were 1000ft from a 100W (ERP) cellular base station (typical value), and that you needed 10dB of jamming/signal ratio (IOW, ten times as much noise as signal – a common benchmark for jamming), and you wanted to jam everything within 50ft, you'd need to transmit about 2.5W (ERP). That's complicated by the need to cover multiple frequencies, or a fairly wide band of frequencies. OTOH, all cell phone technologies use a limited number of frequencies for base stations to announce themselves, and all you have to do is jam that, not all the frequencies that are used when an actual connection is in progress.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4730 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 13):
Try this instead.

Okay. You are talking about something that happened quite some time ago. The thread title and the first post led me to believe that there was an incident TODAY.

Carry on.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3847 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4679 times:



Quoting A/c train (Thread starter):
777 LHR Incident

Sorry to beat that donkey again, but by any standard, the occurrence you're referring to was well and truly an accident.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4660 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 15):
A cell phone is a favorite bomb detonator.

D'oh! I knew that of course but I read the conspiracy theory with the mindset that such a device was allegedly being used to protect the PM's radio/phone comms rather than preventing a bomb from being detonated.

 banghead 


User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5185 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4652 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 17):
Sorry to beat that donkey again, but by any standard, the occurrence you're referring to was well and truly an accident.

theres no such thing as an accident, everything is referred to as an inceident these days. Everything has a cause, and everything can be prevented, sometimes however the cost of preventing an incident far outways the benefit of preventing it.

Something caused a restriction in fuel flow, and it is the investigators job to determine what, how it can be prevented in future and whether doing so is worthwhile.



That'll teach you
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17184 posts, RR: 66
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

I would expand on Nighthawk's post by clarifying that the strict definition of the word "accident" implies the event has no known cause. So it is indeed inappropriate.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4607 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 20):
the strict definition of the word "accident" implies the event has no known cause. So it is indeed inappropriate.

come on you guys know better that that! Any of you in the business should have found this quickly.

Accident
As defined by the NTSB, this is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft where as a result of the operation of an aircraft, any person (either inside or outside the aircraft) receives fatal or serious injury or any aircraft receives substantial damage. The occurrence is also not caused by the deliberate action of one or more persons and that leads to damage or injury. The NTSB definition, which is also used by the FAA, divides accidents into four categories:

Major - an accident in which a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was destroyed, there were multiple fatalities, or there was one fatality and a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
Serious - an accident in which there was either one fatality without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft, or there was at least one serious injury and a 14 CFR121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
Injury - a nonfatal accident with at least one serious injury and without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft.
Damage - an accident in which no person was killed or seriously injured, but in which any aircraft was substantially damaged.



Incident
An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operations.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17184 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4605 times:



Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 21):
come on you guys know better that that! Any of you in the business should have found this quickly.

Not in the biz. I went by a dictionary.  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3847 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4562 times:



Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 21):

Thank you.

I don't know what the CAA's definitions of accident and incident are, but I'll guess they're similar to that of the FAA...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4511 times:



Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 1):
Something must have interfered with the aircrafts avionics & we’ll probably never hear the truth, here’s why.

Something that only interfered with the throttles and nothing else?


25 PhilSquares : Certainly much more than that! The auto-throttles worked as advertised and were not restricted, unlike the AA incident, and really worked when manual
26 Post contains links LMP737 : The point I was trying to get at is sounds like a conspiracy theory to say that something interfered with only one system and nothing else. Here's on
27 Starlionblue : Thanks so much for the best laugh this week!
28 Tdscanuck : Accidents, outside the airline specific regulatory definitions, are those things that aren't *foreseeable* preventable. The canonical example is bein
29 CosmicCruiser : see my post on the NTSB definitions above
30 LMP737 : I thought someone would find it entertaining. Something you have read twice thats for sure.
31 David L : The funniest aspect is that it's presented as the opinion of serious experts and yet there are so many holes in it. I mean, the device was apparently
32 LMP737 : Those conspiracy theory sites are good for a laugh that's for sure. What's sad there are enough naive/ignorant/gullible people out there that will bu
33 Max777geek : Yeah, check the difference beetween the meaning of "wired equipments" and "wireless equipments", that would probably help to makes things more clear.
34 UPSMD11 : Whatever happened to the supposed pictures that a A.netter took of the ill-fated aircraft as it was landing/crashing? I would love to see those but un
35 Starlionblue : IIRC he sold them to the press.
36 Theginge : No he wasn't, it was a chartered BA 747-400, not the regular passenger flight.
37 Metroliner : Have they not already established the cause of the accident as icing of the fuel lines and constriction of flow? Toni
38 Jrheilig : Gremlins. Obviously. Did anyone think to look for pieces of the engine nacelles that had been ripped away, with little claw marks on them? I bet nobod
39 Readytotaxi : Is this some kind of fetish I am missing out on?
40 Post contains links Starlionblue : Tinfoil hats? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
41 Readytotaxi : No, I mean the bit about the ankles
42 Jetlagged : AFAIK, they have established the reason for lack of engine response to be low fuel pressure, but not the cause of that.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 777 LHR Incident
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
UAL Incident At LHR (26 Feb 2007) posted Thu Apr 19 2007 16:22:41 by PhilSquares
BA 777 Incident With Fuel Door Open! posted Fri Jul 30 2004 14:32:23 by WindowSeat
Question On 777 Spoilers posted Sun May 18 2008 23:23:18 by Kaitak744
OEW Of 777-200LR posted Mon May 12 2008 12:16:08 by Ferdinando
777-300ER Upgrading Potential? posted Fri Apr 25 2008 15:06:19 by Hypersonic
Landing A 777 At Ciampino In Rome posted Wed Apr 23 2008 18:12:21 by NightFlier
What SIA A380's Operate From LHR? posted Wed Apr 16 2008 12:38:43 by Mockney
How Long Will A320/777 Computer Chips Be Available posted Sun Apr 13 2008 08:21:36 by TheSonntag
777 Heavy Maintenance - C-Check Question posted Fri Mar 14 2008 14:07:37 by SlimShady
Video: Damaged Saudi Airlines Boeing 777 Lands posted Thu Mar 13 2008 02:18:18 by LockstockNL777
777-300ER Upgrading Potential? posted Fri Apr 25 2008 15:06:19 by Hypersonic
Landing A 777 At Ciampino In Rome posted Wed Apr 23 2008 18:12:21 by NightFlier
What SIA A380's Operate From LHR? posted Wed Apr 16 2008 12:38:43 by Mockney
How Long Will A320/777 Computer Chips Be Available posted Sun Apr 13 2008 08:21:36 by TheSonntag
777 Heavy Maintenance - C-Check Question posted Fri Mar 14 2008 14:07:37 by SlimShady

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format