PDA

View Full Version : Heathrow incident questions


E-P1 fan
18th January 2008, 10:27 PM
What went wrong there?

600' up on final approach all the hydraulics go and the engines don't deliver any thrust? I don't think there are any similar other known incidents. Neither BA nor Boeing are grounding the other 777's - should they?

Things crop up in aviation history - ie: the discovery of metal fatigue (Comet 4b) - the discovery that jet wash can down a fully laden airliner etc - might this be something else new - the first one....?

And the co-pilot landed the plane...brilliantly...not the Captain. Is this usual or was it just chance it was his 'turn' to be at the controls?

I'm full of admiration for the crew - but there are some unanswered
questions which (hopefully) the accident enquiry will answer.

Do we have any aviation expert members who could shed some light on some of the above?

shenstone
18th January 2008, 10:53 PM
What went wrong there?

600' up on final approach all the hydraulics go and the engines don't deliver any thrust? I don't think there are any similar other known incidents. Neither BA nor Boeing are grounding the other 777's - should they?Not IMHO - flying is still the safest form of transport - get the facts before reacting

Things crop up in aviation history - ie: the discovery of metal fatigue (Comet 4b) - the discovery that jet wash can down a fully laden airliner etc - might this be something else new - the first one....?Like I said anythings possible

And the co-pilot landed the plane...brilliantly...not the Captain. Is this usual or was it just chance it was his 'turn' to be at the controls?Standard procedure AFIK

I'm full of admiration for the crew Yes - Agreed - but there are some unanswered questions which (hopefully) the accident enquiry will answer. Yes Agreed to that as well

Do we have any aviation expert members who could shed some light on some of the above? I'm Not an expert - but once worked in that industry. There are so many factors that are taken into account during design and build, training etc. that snap decisions are bad in terms of over or underreaction. Yes the Aircraft manufacturers have a vested interest, but these days there are so many governing bodies that they know they have to be careful

Regards
Andy

theMusicMan
19th January 2008, 12:08 AM
I consider that it was quite remarkable that the co-pilot managed to land the plane at all under such circumstances. It really is a minor miracle that very few serious injuries occurred.

I know very little about aviation and the flight controls of aircraft; but I do know this... At landing approach speed (~150mph) the flaps on the wings are fully lowered thus giving additional lift to the aircraft at this very low speed. This is often why, on landing approaches, one hears the engines increase in speed thus providing extra thrust to compensate for the additional drag caused by the flaps being lowered so much (~42% depending on aircraft type). The engines have to provide more thrust to maintain altitude given additional drag.

So, if what we hear is correct i.e. that there was total engine failure on the 777, the aircraft would not have glided to a landing... but simply lost all lift and plummeted to the ground - given the flaps were engaged at their lowest angle for landing position (thus requiring significant additional power to maintain lift).

This is why the aircraft lost altitude immediately, and hit the grass some 400yds prior to the southerly runway, actually coming to a stop at a 35 degree angle just on the start of the runway!!

It's no wonder the landing gear was sheared from the undercarriage, and thus the wings hit the ground - thus helping stability of the aircraft during rapid deceleration and halting.

It is testament to the co-pilot (and pilot) that he/she had the skill, superb reactions, and general awareness of what to do in an emergency, that in reality, saved the lives of the entire number of people on board the aircraft.

I hate flying, really hate it, but presently as part of my job I have to do a lot of it, I am glad to have the knowledge that there are crew members who, under such stressful circumstances, act in a totally professional manner and so obviously helped save the lives of all those on board.

Just my long(ish) 0.02p

E-P1 fan
19th January 2008, 10:05 AM
I agree MusicMan - the crew did a fantastic job. It could so easily have been the same result as at East Midlands a few years ago.

My questions are all about the why of it all.

Why did the plane lose all power and all hydraulics on final approach?

My paranoia even extends to the distant possibility of a terrorist threat from the ground - ie the sending up a beam of high frequency - (like the police do in major bomb incidents to prevent remote detonation of further devices) - to jam the electronics of the plane as it landed (ie not much time to rectify).

Also why did the plane not catch fire (God forbid). In landing incidents, damage to engines more often than not causes fuel-line fracture and explosion and fire. This did not happen either.

It just strikes me that there may be a bit more to this than at first meets the eye.

OBE's for all the crew though I hope - they (unlike most) deserve them.

Barr1e
19th January 2008, 10:17 AM
Fortunately they have the answers in the boxes - and we should learn soon what caused the incident. Also, I'm sure the crew will have more to say in the future. Indeed today Anne read that the wife of Captain Burkill has already been in contact with publicist Max Clifford.

Thank goodness for the training and skill of the crew.

Regards. Barr1e

OlyFlyer
19th January 2008, 08:42 PM
Co-pilot or captain, makes no difference, except in the ears of the amateur. Both have the same training, and are single handedly capable (or at least should be capable) to handle any situation, even greater emergency than the above described. It is a common misunderstanding to believe that the captain is some kind of God who can solve anything, while the co-pilot is some kind of trainee. That is never the case. Both are fully educated, and occasionally both are captain in terms of gold bars. One is called pilot flying, the other is pilot non-flying. Which is which is up to the cockpit crew to decide at each phase.

The pilot non-flying can take over any time if needed. The 'captain' is the pilot in charge, the manager. He/she sits in the left seat and if there is a need, he/she has the final decision. In every modern company today, decisions in cockpit are made together, not by the captain single handedly.

After a fatal accident some 20 years ago the world of aviation went through a big change. I think that was the last time the captain was regarded as a God. In that accident the captain was flying the landing and the approach. The co-pilot has seen several serious mistakes, he judged the captain not being capable to do the flying, yet he did not dare to take over, because he was affraid of his own career. He let the captain land the aircraft. Unfortunately, the plane crashed on short final, killing several people. This accident had one good thing with it, the invention of CRM, Cockpit Resource Management, which later changed to Crew Resource Management, including even the rest of the crew. This was also the end of the captain being the God on board of an aircraft.

In another accident, several years after, in a emergency situation immediately after takeoff (both engines lost power), the opposite has happened. The captain was totally paralised by the situation, but the co-pilot seen that and took over. He immediately attempted to return to the airport but failed, due to lack of trust caused by ice. Constantly losing altitude, unable to hold, he managed to 'land' on a field just a few kilometers from the runway. The plane broke into two pieces, but nobody died, one seriously injured. If he would have let the captain do the flying, everybody would probably be dead today. The captain was retired the same evening after the press conferance held later, a few hours after the accident. The 'co-pilot' is still flying.

I trust the aviation industry and everybody working with it in almost every country in the world. I think they are the most safety minded people in the world, where every single mistake is used to improve safety even more. I would however NEVER trust a news bulletin or a newspaper report, especially not befor the accident/incident investigation is ready. Even after that, I'd be very careful in who to trust in reporting.

E-P1 fan
19th January 2008, 09:46 PM
The world of aviation has been through many changes as a result of accidents - some of which they had to be shamed into doing - ie following the series of DC10 crashes.

When it eventually applies safety lessons, it does so extremely well, and indeed mile for mile flying is the safest form of travel - statistically anyway.
However the industry does have a bit of a history of NOT doing things it should have done - until eventually forced to do so.

Not being a trained pilot, I am only an interested amateur observer. But I still have the same nagging little questions nibbling away at me.

Until some final professional and independent accident assessment and report emerges I guess none of us know anything more than anyone else.

The final mantra of course is - thank heavens whatever caused it did not result in the tragedy it so easy could have been.

Jim Ford
19th January 2008, 10:15 PM
I trust the aviation industry and everybody working with it in almost every country in the world. I think they are the most safety minded people in the world, where every single mistake is used to improve safety even

Hmm - I worked for 35 years in Quality Control on gas turbines at Rolls-Royce Leavesden and I've seen some diabolical decisions made that could have impacted on safety. Decisions made that were a 'calculated risk' - where the junior management made the 'calculations' and the pilot and passengers took the risk!

Jim Ford

Scapula Memory
19th January 2008, 10:47 PM
Hi all,

Interesting thread and some very good comments and by the way I do work for British Airways.

I cannot comment officially for obvious reasons, but the best thing right now is to let the Boeing engineers and the rest of the authorities, plus BA to conclude their investigations.

It my take a while but what happened is indeed a very rare occurrence and I know from 20 years of experience this company leave no stone unturned when it comes to safety and security.

We land over 300 flights a day into LHR and have done that for decades without incidence. I do not want to sound like a corporate puppet but I really do know what goes on in the background, and it is a momentous effort that goes on to ensure passenger safety. It never stops and we continually test processes and safety procedures.

I do NOT claim to be an aviation expert but am priviledged to have a fantastic insight into what goes on in an airline, and to contribute to the everyday running of BA.

Everybody wants to know why that B777 crashed and in good time that will be revealed.

Until then the best thing is to let the experts get on with it hopefully something will be learnt from it and avoid a repetition.

regards

John

theMusicMan
19th January 2008, 11:58 PM
Hi John

Great to hear from someone in BA, but I have to say that totally I agree with you on some of your points, but absolutely not on others.

The point I disagree with is that you feel we should do nothing, say nothing, nor debate this issue until the experts have commented. This I'm afraid - in my opinion - is not real life, and we all need and have a right to comment on such matters. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone is entitled to voice that opinion it so long as it falls in with the rules of this site (or wherever comment is made) and also that those comments are not offensive or racist etc. We absolutely should discuss this matter, in as much detail as one feels it needs discussion - it's all a matter of free choice. If you personally feel we shouldn't discuss it, then I'd suggest you simply do not join in on the discussions. I appreciate your justifiable defense of BA, but this doesn't mean we cannot nor should not comment.

However, where I do agree with you, is that I feel this incident has done nothing at all to damage the reputation of British Airways and in fact, I'd say totally the opposite and state that the reputation of BA has improved as a result of the superb actions of the pilot, co-pilot and crew of the B777. They deserve medals for the way they safely brought the aircraft down with minimal injury to those on board. Credit to BA for their professionalism, and the obvious importance they place on training, and performance of crew members.

I have flown many times with BA on a 777, and have found it to be one of the most comfortable, noise free, and most smooth aircraft I have had the pleasure to fly on. British Airways are one of, if not the best airline I have used and I am glad you come across as being delighted to work for them.

This incident has done nothing to dampen my enthusiasm to continue to fly with BA, AND on 777 aircraft.

E-P1 fan
20th January 2008, 10:16 AM
There's a comprehensive article HERE (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3216746.ece) in the Times online today for anyone who, like me, is curious about this one.

theMusicMan
20th January 2008, 10:48 AM
Wow, absolutely Wow is all I can say about that article sir. Thanks for posting a link to it.

I totally recommend those who are interested in this, to have a read of the full article; it is well written... (no, check that - brilliantly written in fact), is factual and informative to the extreme. Some superb Sunday morning reading, thanks.

E-P1 fan
20th January 2008, 12:32 PM
Thanks John

Jim Ford
20th January 2008, 12:49 PM
It my take a while but what happened is indeed a very rare occurrence and I know from 20 years of experience this company leave no stone unturned when it comes to safety and security.


I know from 35 years experience in Rolls Royce Quality Control, that the bottom line is that it's extremely difficult to protect against a 'nut-strangler' on the assembly line who knows best and ignores established procedures - or a junior manager under pressure from above to get an engine completed on time, who signs-off an engine that a line inspector refuses to do because of serious doubts.

I've seen the above many times - I could write a book!

And don't think this doesn't happen in BA's workshops. Many of the personnel went to BA when RR Leavesden closed in the early 90's - and one fitter in particular I wouldn't trust near my car!

Jim Ford

Scapula Memory
20th January 2008, 02:00 PM
John (musicman)

Not sure about your reply because I did not really say that this should not be discussed. I think you mis-quoted me there. The point I was making was none of us are experts in aviation so anything said here is mostly speculation or conjecture.However most air accidents usually get tracked back to a human error. It may not be pilot error but could be the error of someone else. The investigation will no doubt reveal the causes. They are often quite an unusual set of circumstances.

Jim,

I can honestly say that I have never witnessed anyone outwardly ( or deliberately) compromise air safety where I work. I do not dispute what you say, but what have you actually seen that affected the safety of an aircraft? More to the point if you did see something did you act upon it? I have done on the ground accident investigation and can say here that every person who does anything regarding aircraft can be found and held accountable.

Sure there are slackers like any company and mistakes can be made, but a generalisation that BA is riddled with dodgy fitters is really rather silly.

regards

John.

theMusicMan
20th January 2008, 02:18 PM
John (musicman)

Not sure about your reply because I did not really say that this should not be discussed. I think you mis-quoted me there. The point I was making was none of us are experts in aviation so anything said here is mostly speculation or conjecture.However most air accidents usually get tracked back to a human error. It may not be pilot error but could be the error of someone else. The investigation will no doubt reveal the causes. They are often quite an unusual set of circumstances.

Jim,

I can honestly say that I have never witnessed anyone outwardly ( or deliberately) compromise air safety where I work. I do not dispute what you say, but what have you actually seen that affected the safety of an aircraft? More to the point if you did see something did you act upon it? I have done on the ground accident investigation and can say here that every person who does anything regarding aircraft can be found and held accountable.

Sure there are slackers like any company and mistakes can be made, but a generalisation that BA is riddled with dodgy fitters is really rather silly.

regards

John.Sorry, no offense meant sir... if I misread your intent I apologise... :)

E-P1 fan
20th January 2008, 02:20 PM
I know from 35 years experience in Rolls Royce Quality Control, that the bottom line is that it's extremely difficult to protect against a 'nut-strangler'

In any industry too - Railtrack last year in Cumbria for example

Jim Ford
20th January 2008, 03:52 PM
I can honestly say that I have never witnessed anyone outwardly ( or deliberately) compromise air safety where I work. I do not dispute what you say, but what have you actually seen that affected the safety of an aircraft? More to the point if you did see something did you act upon it? I have done on the ground accident investigation and can say here that every person who does anything regarding aircraft can be found and held accountable.

Sure there are slackers like any company and mistakes can be made, but a generalisation that BA is riddled with dodgy fitters is really rather silly.


I didn't say that BA was 'riddled with dodgy fitters' - I said there was _one_ I wouldn't trust. In fact there was one you took on that I gave a good reference.

It also wasn't generally a case of 'slacking'. It was more a case of ignoring carefully laid down procedures, because if they were followed 'we'd never get the job done!'. These operatives were usually favoured by the management over those that followed the procedures because they were quicker workers as a result of the shortcuts they took.

Jim Ford

Barr1e
20th January 2008, 04:02 PM
Initial Report AAIB Ref: EW/C2008/01/01
Accident
Aircraft Type and Registration: Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM
No & Type of Engines: 2 Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 895-17 turbofan engines
Year of Manufacture: 2001
Date & Time: 17 January 2008 at 1243 hrs
Location: Undershoot RWY 27L, London Heathrow Airport
Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (passenger)
Persons on Board: Crew - 16
Passengers - 136
Injuries: Crew - 4 (minor)
Passengers - 1 (serious)
Passengers - 8 (minor)
Nature of Damage: Substantial
Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation

Following an uneventful flight from Beijing, China, the aircraft was established on an ILS approach to Runway 27L at London Heathrow. Initially the approach progressed normally, with the Autopilot and Autothrottle engaged, until the aircraft was at a height of approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down. The aircraft then descended rapidly and struck the ground, some 1,000 ft short of the paved runway surface, just inside the airfield boundary fence. The aircraft stopped on the very beginning of the paved surface of Runway 27L. During the short ground roll the right main landing gear separated from the wing and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing root. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire. An emergency evacuation via the slides was supervised by the cabin crew and all occupants left the aircraft, some receiving minor injuries.
The AAIB was notified of the accident within a few minutes and a team of Inspectors including engineers, pilots and a flight recorder specialist deployed to Heathrow. In accordance with the established international arrangements the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the USA, representing the State of Design and Manufacture of the aircraft, was informed of the event. The NTSB appointed an Accredited Representative to lead a team from the USA made up of investigators from the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing. A Boeing investigator already in the UK joined the investigation on the evening of the event, the remainder of the team arrived in the UK on Friday 18th January. Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer is also supporting the investigation, an investigator having joined the AAIB team.
Activity at the accident scene was coordinated with the Airport Fire and Rescue Service, the Police, the British Airports Authority and British Airways to ensure the recovery of all relevant evidence, to facilitate the removal of the aircraft and the reinstatement of airport operations.
The flight crew were interviewed on the evening of the event by an AAIB Operations Inspector and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Quick Access Recorder (QAR) were removed for replay. The CVR and FDR have been successfully downloaded at the AAIB laboratories at Farnborough and both records cover the critical final stages of the flight. The QAR was downloaded with the assistance of British Airways and the equipment manufacturer. All of the downloaded information is now the subject of detailed analysis.
Examination of the aircraft systems and engines is ongoing.
Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally until the aircraft was established on late finals for Runway 27L. At approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down, the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond. Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond. The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface.
The investigation is now focussed on more detailed analysis of the Flight Recorder information, collecting further recorded information from various system modules and examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation.

OlyFlyer
20th January 2008, 10:15 PM
Hmm - I worked for 35 years in Quality Control on gas turbines at Rolls-Royce Leavesden and I've seen some diabolical decisions made that could have impacted on safety. Decisions made that were a 'calculated risk' - where the junior management made the 'calculations' and the pilot and passengers took the risk!

Jim FordSorry Jim, I don't know when you worked there, but I can certainly say that a lot seems to have improved only the last 10-15 years in regard of safety in avaition. Accidents do and will happen, but I can hardly think there are any people in aviation business today who match your description. I can be wrong, but I doubt that. As a matter of fact, I think the aviation industry is safer than any other safety critical business. I know however absolutely nothing about RR, so I could be wrong regarding RR.

PeterD
20th January 2008, 10:55 PM
Sorry Jim, I don't know when you worked there, but I can certainly say that a lot seems to have improved only the last 10-15 years in regard of safety in avaition. Accidents do and will happen, but I can hardly think there are any people in aviation business today who match your description. I can be wrong, but I doubt that. As a matter of fact, I think the aviation industry is safer than any other safety critical business. I know however absolutely nothing about RR, so I could be wrong regarding RR.

I agree with you OlyFlyer. When carrying out Safety Reviews one factor that is critical in any scoring is impact of failure. In flight, most risks would attract a high score for this and would necessitate investigation to eliminate such risks or to mitigate them.

PeterD

E-P1 fan
21st January 2008, 08:43 AM
All very interesting - but the original 'wonderings' are still unanswered.

OlyFlyer
21st January 2008, 09:57 AM
What went wrong there? Nobody knows without reading the investigation report. Everything else is just speculation.

Neither BA nor Boeing are grounding the other 777's - should they? Which indicates it may have other cause than aircraft model related. SAS did not ground the Dash 8 for longer than it was necessary for the preliminary investigation to identify the most probable cause. After the third similar accident within a short time, SAS got rid of ALL their Dash 8's but Bombardier never globally grounded them AFAIK.

Things crop up in aviation history - ie: the discovery of metal fatigue (Comet 4b) - the discovery that jet wash can down a fully laden airliner etc - might this be something else new - the first one....? Possible. Anyway, accidents has happend and will happen. Nothing is 100% sure, accept that one day we all die. When that will be nobody knows.

And the co-pilot landed the plane...brilliantly...not the Captain. Is this usual or was it just chance it was his 'turn' to be at the controls? Already answered, normally it is decided by the cockpit crew who is doing what and at which phase of flight. Probably that is the case for every modern company.

I'm full of admiration for the crew - but there are some unanswered
questions which (hopefully) the accident enquiry will answer. Yes.

Do we have any aviation expert members who could shed some light on some of the above? No expert can, or would give a definite answer on any forum. The answer is always in the final investigation report, if possible to give a definite answer at all. The Uberlingen accident is more than 200 pages long, some accidents are more complex than others, but until the final report is written, nobody can say anything.

E-P1 fan
21st January 2008, 10:48 AM
Thanks for that OF. I agree that my initial queries/questions/wonderings etc are unanswerable at this time and will 'probably' come out in the final report. Maybe the series of whitewashes we have had in UK over the past few years has reduced my faith in reports of any kind - be they about aviation incidents, flooding, the financial proberty of elected officials or the legality of invading another country.

I do know, that the aviation industry worldwide, is about as good as it gets in terms of engineering and scientific expertise, training, innovative solutions.

It's the money men and the politicians who do the spin that I don't trust.

Scapula Memory
21st January 2008, 11:16 AM
Thanks for that OF. I agree that my initial queries/questions/wonderings etc are unanswerable at this time and will 'probably' come out in the final report. Maybe the series of whitewashes we have had in UK over the past few years has reduced my faith in reports of any kind - be they about aviation incidents, flooding, the financial proberty of elected officials or the legality of invading another country.

I do know, that the aviation industry worldwide, is about as good as it gets in terms of engineering and scientific expertise, training, innovative solutions.

It's the money men and the politicians who do the spin that I don't trust.

For certain there will not be a whitewash on this because there is too much at stake. Facts are critical here because very soon the "blame game" will begin. Those flyers right now are heroes but this can change as human beings are generally the weak link in accidents. But it could fall at the feet of a number of people. Right now there are some serious jitters going on out there in certain places. In previous accidents authorities blame airlines, that blame manafacturers, that blame component suppliers and so on and on.

They simply have to establish facts and act upon them. The bottom line is that this scenario has to be nailed down and prevented from ever happening again. This is how the aviation industry works and why it is a very reliable and safe way to travel. Its just a shame that it can take a catastrophic event and much loss of life to bring about the changes needed.

John

OlyFlyer
21st January 2008, 11:39 AM
The difference between the different type of investigation reports you mention is that all, EXCEPT the aviation related ones are national reports. Aviation is internation, not only that, but global. How it should be done is regulated by ICAO and Eurocontrol. A whole lot of other large interested parties, like the FAA, NATS, the CAA, aircraft manufacturers and also the airlines are also very much interested in a proper investigation and final report. Requiremets are very high on an investigation regarding ANY aviation related incidents/accidents. I trust the final report to 100%, regardless who types it. What I don't always trust is the type of 'report for dummies', a shorter version printed on a few lines by newspapers written by a journalist, based on his/her understanding and ambitions. An aviation accident, even without any fatal injuries gets often more attantion than a train accident with many dead. It is too spectacular and very often gets out of proportions.

A train accident or something similar, however tragic it may be, is only investigated nationally. How well that is done is up to the local authorities and the national requrements. In fact, not even nuclear power plants share the same kind of pressure as the aviation in regard of safety reports and investigations, which I think, especially after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is strange.

PeterD
21st January 2008, 11:48 AM
The difference between the different type of investigation reports you mention is that all, EXCEPT the aviation related ones are national reports. Aviation is internation, not only that, but global. How it should be done is regulated by ICAO and Eurocontrol. A whole lot of other large interested parties, like the FAA, NATS, the CAA, aircraft manufacturers and also the airlines are also very much interested in a proper investigation and final report. Requiremets are very high on an investigation regarding ANY aviation related incidents/accidents. I trust the final report to 100%, regardless who types it. What I don't always trust is the type of 'report for dummies', a shorter version printed on a few lines by newspapers written by a journalist, based on his/her understanding and ambitions. An aviation accident, even without any fatal injuries gets often more attantion than a train accident with many dead. It is too spectacular and very often gets out of proportions.

A train accident or something similar, however tragic it may be, is only investigated nationally. How well that is done is up to the local authorities and the national requrements. In fact, not even nuclear power plants share the same kind of pressure as the aviation in regard of safety reports and investigations, which I think, especially after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is strange.

I agree with all you have said except, in this country, Rail Accidents are treated just as seriously. Its road accidents that seem to get reported and then forgotten.

Kind regards

PeterD

OlyFlyer
21st January 2008, 12:07 PM
I agree with all you have said except, in this country, Rail Accidents are treated just as seriously. Its road accidents that seem to get reported and then forgotten.

Kind regards

PeterD

Peter, I am not saying they are not threated seriously or that they are not investigated professionally. I am saying it is up to each nation to do as they like in most cases EXCEPT when it comes to aviation, where there is an international preassure, standards and requirements to follow. Rail accidents are not getting the same attention as plane accidents, and even large rail accidents are easily forgotten by the public, while many, not so serious air accidents are remembered almost forever. I guess that is because the large majority of people are still more affraid to take a plane (even if most won't admit) than to drive to LHR from London.

Scapula Memory
21st January 2008, 12:51 PM
Peter, I am not saying they are not threated seriously or that they are not investigated professionally. I am saying it is up to each nation to do as they like in most cases EXCEPT when it comes to aviation, where there is an international preassure, standards and requirements to follow. Rail accidents are not getting the same attention as plane accidents, and even large rail accidents are easily forgotten by the public, while many, not so serious air accidents are remembered almost forever. I guess that is because the large majority of people are still more affraid to take a plane (even if most won't admit) than to drive to LHR from London.

Olyflyer, I would tend to agree with what you say in this and your previous post but would add like Peter did, that rail accidents here in UK are given as much investigation as anything else. This was seen in the Hatfield crash, Ladbroke Grove crash and Selby all of which are fairly recent. This is different from press coverage (quality coverage or not) as Air accidents are often far more catastrophic events than rail. Often they are without survivors plus the added damage to other property. The scale of things is what we are describing and to a press man ...well he knows which sells more copy.

Strangely you say drive to LHR from London? This is the same place:confused:

OlyFlyer
21st January 2008, 02:53 PM
Olyflyer, I would tend to agree with what you say in this and your previous post but would add like Peter did, that rail accidents here in UK are given as much investigation as anything else. This was seen in the Hatfield crash, Ladbroke Grove crash and Selby all of which are fairly recent. This is different from press coverage (quality coverage or not) as Air accidents are often far more catastrophic events than rail. Often they are without survivors plus the added damage to other property. The scale of things is what we are describing and to a press man ...well he knows which sells more copy.

Strangely you say drive to LHR from London? This is the same place:confused:And, once again, I am not the one who says rail accidents are not taken seriously in UK, or in most other countries. It is just that the investigations may not follow the same road as plane crashes, each country is doing it differently, while plane crashes are investigated AND followed up more carefully internationally.

Just look at a very basic thing of cockpit voice recorders, flight plan data recorders and the so called "black box" helping to find out the answers. How many trains are equipped with those? How many "radar recordings" exists for trains, where speed and position is recorded every 5 seconds? Of course, considering the number of trains runing, many people would say that is impossible to do. But I ask, why? It would certainly add to the costs of travel, but I doubt it would add more than it adds to a plane ticket price. I know radar technology is not suitable for trains, but there is other technology which could be used similarily. When an aircraft accident/incident happens all that recorded data is matched together, analysed and discussed to find the answers and to improve. I don't see that happening on ground traffic, like ships, trucks, buses, taxis and trains.

I mentioned driving from London to LHR, because many people are more affraid of taking a plane than driving to the airport, which is actually definitely more dangerous then the actual flight one is trying to catch. Maybe I wasn't clear. Sorry.

Scapula Memory
21st January 2008, 04:46 PM
I mentioned driving from London to LHR, because many people are more affraid of taking a plane than driving to the airport, which is actually definitely more dangerous then the actual flight one is trying to catch. Maybe I wasn't clear. Sorry.

Yes it`s weird really, I suppose the car is familiar comfort zone we take for granted.

John

E-P1 fan
21st January 2008, 06:29 PM
More to the point we feel we have more control over what happens than we do when sitting in a plane - train - bus etc

DerekW
21st January 2008, 06:29 PM
If you remember the Flanders and Swan joke about the number of buses driving round the airport to improve the ratio between airplane safety compared to road safety

Barr1e
24th January 2008, 06:43 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7206596.stm

Regards. Barr1e

E-P1 fan
24th January 2008, 06:52 PM
Yes I heard that on Radio 4 Barrie


"The AAIB said it was now focusing on the Boeing 777's fuel supply system.
US investigators have noted six previous engine failures in the same type of aircraft, it also emerged. "

OlyFlyer
24th January 2008, 08:04 PM
Very interesting read. Well described procedures as well, except for the:

There is no set route between the stack and the start of the final approach because there are many variables for air traffic control to consider, such as weather and the position of other aircraft. which is not fully correct. The routes are indeed described in detail for every part of the flight from the holding stack as well. It is called STAR (Standard Terminal Arrival Route). Which route is used depends on which runway is in use, which in turn depends on weather conditions and some other parameters. All that is known to the pilots in advance, before arriving to London. They know which maps and charts to prepare, what to do in case they have to abort landing, which is the airport to go to in case LHR is closed and so on. The routes are indeed very well described and controlled, even environmetal issues are taken care of, like noise and speed limits.

Anyway, interesting read and thank you for the update.

E-P1 fan
3rd February 2008, 10:27 AM
My paranoia even extends to the distant possibility of a terrorist threat from the ground - ie the sending up a beam of high frequency - (like the police do in major bomb incidents to prevent remote detonation of further devices) - to jam the electronics of the plane as it landed (ie not much time to rectify).

Something like http://www.spycatcheronline.co.uk/bomb-jamming-equipment-p-570.html

On todays Broadcasting House the idea that Gordon Brown was there at the airport (and possibly actually arriving on or near the apron) at the time of the plane's final approach - and the leaked suggestion that high profile people such as he have equipment like this as standard on their vehicles etc - make my wacky query a bit less wacky I contend.

Over to the 'experts'

DerekW
3rd February 2008, 12:34 PM
Just because an act is initiated by the UK government does not stop it from being classed as terrorism against the population

E-P1 fan
3rd February 2008, 02:07 PM
Of course.

Although incompetence is more the order of the day these days in our society so... imagine that - not without thinking drive they drive the pm to the airport (with the jammer on to prevent remote detonation of bombs) .... the plane comes in just as they get into the airport approaches.... ...everything suddenly goes mad on the flightdeck ........... as the jammer in Brown's car does its job of protecting him............and in so doing - causes problems in the plane.

Co-incidence?? - Accident??

I don't know. :confused:

But I'm curious to know the real reasons for that incident - whatever they are - and however mundane they may turn out to be.

flying haggis
9th February 2008, 02:36 PM
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t196/draycote/image001.gif

PeterD
9th February 2008, 03:26 PM
Very Good:D

All airports should have them:rolleyes:

PeterD

E-P1 fan
9th February 2008, 03:59 PM
Ha ha!!!! :)

Ellie
10th February 2008, 12:31 AM
:D I hope they have them turned on next week, we're going to be flying on 13th :eek:

DerekW
18th February 2008, 08:15 PM
Latest report from the investigators is at

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/S1-2008%20G-YMMM.pdf

E-P1 fan
18th February 2008, 08:49 PM
and interestingly - they still don't seem to have an answer.
My original hypothesis (or hunch I suppose) therefore still holds good as it hasn't yet been disproved.

see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7208126.stm

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