A/c train
Topic Author
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 7:57 am

777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 7:20 am

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 ?
 
SimProgrammer
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:50 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 8:45 am

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!
 
oly720man
Posts: 5755
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 8:57 am



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
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 11:25 am

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.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 11:57 am



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!
Fly fast, live slow
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 12:05 pm



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.
 
gkyip
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:13 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 6:52 pm



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
 
point8six
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:44 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 6:59 pm

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.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 7:28 pm



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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 7:28 pm



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.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 7:46 pm



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
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 7:47 pm

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.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 8:01 pm



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
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 8:50 pm



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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 20, 2008 10:55 pm



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.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 12:56 am



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.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 6:09 am



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 avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3731
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 9:02 am



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.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 10:16 am



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 avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4789
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 10:38 am



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.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 10:49 am

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." - John Ringo
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 12:52 pm



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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 12:56 pm



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." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3731
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 2:24 pm



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...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 4:30 pm



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?
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Wed May 21, 2008 10:28 pm



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 24):
Something that only interfered with the throttles and nothing else?

Certainly much more than that! The auto-throttles worked as advertised and were not restricted, unlike the AA incident, and really worked when manual thrust was selected.
Fly fast, live slow
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Thu May 22, 2008 12:32 am



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 25):
Certainly much more than that! The auto-throttles worked as advertised and were not restricted, unlike the AA incident, and really worked when manual thrust was selected.

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 one of the more bizzare claims regarding the incedent. Cue in Dr. Evil "RRRRIIIGGGHHTTT"

< http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1063.htm >
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Thu May 22, 2008 12:52 am



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 26):
Here's one of the more bizzare claims regarding the incedent. Cue in Dr. Evil "RRRRIIIGGGHHTTT"

< http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1063.htm >

Thanks so much for the best laugh this week! Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Thu May 22, 2008 5:59 am



Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 19):
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.

Accidents, outside the airline specific regulatory definitions, are those things that aren't *foreseeable* preventable. The canonical example is being hit by a meteorite. It's only preventable in hindsight. It really is an accident.

Tom.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Thu May 22, 2008 6:18 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 28):
Accidents, outside the airline specific regulatory definitions, are those things that aren't *foreseeable* preventable.

see my post on the NTSB definitions above
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Thu May 22, 2008 2:35 pm



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 27):
Thanks so much for the best laugh this week!

I thought someone would find it entertaining. Something you have read twice thats for sure.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Thu May 22, 2008 6:00 pm



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 30):
I thought someone would find it entertaining. Something you have read twice thats for sure.

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 "set to Heathrow Airports radio frequencies" and, because the PM's departure was delayed, "the aircraft identifier codes transmitted to the device targeted the wrong aircraft".

Say, what? This device apparently decided "Bugger this, I haven't got all day. I'll just take out the nearest BA 777 that's in the air".  biggrin 

They also reckon "Kremlin sources further speculate that the assassination of the British Prime Minister, and should it have been successful, would have been blamed on dissident factions in Russia supporting President Putin as tensions between the two nations have risen to crisis levels over the past few months "... Yeah, right. It would be "totally worth it".  sarcastic 

 rotfl 
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Fri May 23, 2008 12:08 am



Quoting David L (Reply 31):
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 "set to Heathrow Airports radio frequencies" and, because the PM's departure was delayed, "the aircraft identifier codes transmitted to the device targeted the wrong aircraft".

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 buy into it.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Max777geek
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:20 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Tue May 27, 2008 11:07 am



Quoting SimProgrammer (Reply 1):
Anyone have a better suggestion?

Yeah, check the difference beetween the meaning of "wired equipments" and "wireless equipments",
that would probably help to makes things more clear.
 
upsmd11
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 10:56 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Fri May 30, 2008 1:46 pm

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 understand they were confiscated afterwards with the hopes of being returned.

Ciao,
John
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Fri May 30, 2008 2:18 pm



Quoting UPSMD11 (Reply 34):
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 understand they were confiscated afterwards with the hopes of being returned.

IIRC he sold them to the press.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
theginge
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Sat May 31, 2008 12:23 pm



Quoting Point8six (Reply 7):
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.

No he wasn't, it was a chartered BA 747-400, not the regular passenger flight.
 
metroliner
Posts: 847
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:35 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Sat May 31, 2008 1:23 pm

Have they not already established the cause of the accident as icing of the fuel lines and constriction of flow?

Toni
Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
 
jrheilig
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:38 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:58 pm

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 nobody did.... It was definitely gremlins though.


 Smile

JH
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:33 pm



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 8):

Is this some kind of fetish I am missing out on?  Confused
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17119
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:39 pm



Quoting Readytotaxi (Reply 39):
Is this some kind of fetish I am missing out on? Confused

Tinfoil hats?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:53 pm

No, I mean the bit about the ankles  Big grin
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: 777 LHR Incident

Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:49 pm



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 37):
Have they not already established the cause of the accident as icing of the fuel lines and constriction of flow?

AFAIK, they have established the reason for lack of engine response to be low fuel pressure, but not the cause of that.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests