Proms Podcast

Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Sunday Times

January 20, 2008

Hunt for fatal flaw of Flight 38

An electronic systems failure is emerging as the prime suspect in BA’s brush with disaster at Heathrow, report Richard Woods, Steven Swinford and Paul Eddy

Richard Woods, Steven Swinford and Paul Eddy

After 10 hours of flying, Speedbird 038 was almost home. First Officer John Coward was preparing to land the British Airways flight from Beijing to Heathrow. In front of him on the right side of the cockpit were three screens displaying flight, navigation and engine data; another three were arrayed in front of Captain Peter Burkill, who sat on the left.

Beyond, through the cockpit windows, Coward could see central London, one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, stretch into the distance. It was Thursday lunchtime and they were approaching Heathrow from the east. There is a preference for flights into the airport to cross the capital in this direction because it is quieter than having them take off over the city. Below them, millions of people were going about their business, never imagining that a plane might fall out of the sky.

At eight nautical miles from the airport, BA038 was down to about 2,400ft in a shallow glide. At 7½ nautical miles, the plane lined up with the instrument landing system that would guide it into Heathrow.

“At 2,000ft you lower the gear,” said a former 777 pilot, referring to the undercarriage. “That’s the procedure.”

The plane was lining up for a “category one” landing in good weather, being guided in by two radio beams, one horizontal, one vertical. They were drawing the plane down a three-degree glidepath onto the southern runway, known as 27L, at Heathrow. Everything appeared normal.

The Boeing 777 is one of the most advanced passenger jets in the world, crammed with highly sophisticated electronics. Over 12 years it had established a remarkable safety record - more than 600 of the planes had gone into service and not one had crashed.

To Coward, a 41-year-old career pilot with BA, it was a routine flight and the plane was taking the strain. The autopilot and autothrottle were engaged and making the necessary adjustments.

“You can see the throttles moving themselves. It’s as if they have a ghostly hand on them,” another retired 777 pilot said. “The gear is down and the flaps are down. In most cases you’d see the runway at this point. The aircraft would be holding a speed or even slowing slightly.”

As the plane approached, Coward, according to former pilots, would have announced: “1,000 radio. Man land 200.” This meant the plane was at 1,000ft, in its final approach, and that Coward was going to switch from autopilot to a manual landing at 200ft.

Once such a procedure was set, the plane would continue under automatic control until it reached an altitude of 250ft. Then a female computer voice would say, “Decide.”

“That’s decision time,” said a former 777 pilot. “The co-pilot would take the autopilot out. He’d say, ‘Man land 200, I have control’.”

At two miles out and 600ft up, the plane was “established on late finals” - it was less than a minute from landing. The crew and passengers must have thought that they would soon be inside the terminal.

As Coward stared at the controls, the autothrottle demanded more thrust. It was a normal procedure, a small adjustment intended to keep the plane at the correct speed and height. Nothing happened. The computer system again ordered more thrust. Again, no response.

In the central control displays of the 777 is a screen that shows the engine pressure rate (EPR). One indicator shows the “command EPR”, the level ordered by the pilot; another indicates the actual EPR. “The pilots would have noticed that the achieved EPR was drifting back,” said one former 777 flier. “That would have been one of their first indicators.”

Coward or Burkill - it is not clear which - tried to increase thrust manually. Still nothing happened.

At high altitudes, planes that lose power can glide for distances of up to 100 miles, according to Boeing, helped by starting at cruising speeds of more than 600mph. At less than 1,000ft and at much slower speeds, they can drop like a stone.

Yesterday Coward said the plane had suffered “catastrophic failure” in both engines and that he feared it would smash into the ground and disintegrate. He told a Sky News reporter that his “adrenaline kicked in”.

There were no drills for such a situation, no time to try to restart the engines. Pilots are taught how to recover from potential disasters at normal cruising altitudes, but not so close to the ground. “I was just focused on holding it up in the air for as long as possible, then keeping it straight,” said Coward.

Below 600ft the “ground proximity” warning is inhibited so that it does not distract pilots from an ordinary landing. But other signs and sounds would have rapidly filled the cockpit.

Through his clenched hand, Coward would have felt the control stick judder. “If a stall is imminent, the aircraft analyses its airspeed and gives a preliminary shake to the yoke,” said one former pilot. “It won’t let you miss it. We call it the ‘stick shaker’. An ‘airspeed low’ warning will also flash up on screen.”

Coward had only seconds to respond, only seconds before the plane would hit the ground.

Just 100ft or so below, Pym Reehal, whose house lies in the Heathrow flightpath, had gone outside to his car. He had an engine problem of his own and was trying to jumpstart the vehicle.

As he tinkered, BA038 hurtled overhead. “I had a quick glimpse and saw it was coming in at a very weird angle,” recalled Reehal. “It was sat at such a strange angle.”

A short distance away, John Rowland was driving his taxi just outside the airport perimeter fence. “It looked as though it was just missing the roof of my cab,” he said. “So low you would think you could lean out of the window and touch it.”

The plane skimmed the road and missed the perimeter fence by a few feet. Further down the Heathrow airfield another BA flight was preparing to take off. One of the air crew watched as BA038 hurtled towards the ground.

“I thought: oh my God, something’s terribly wrong,” said the witness, who asked not to be named. “The angle was all wrong. It just looked like it would be a disaster.”

Inside the cockpit of BA038 Coward and Burkill had no time to issue a Mayday, no time to warn passengers to brace. In the few remaining seconds they just fought to keep the plane flying.

The failure of the engines had cut the main power. The 777 does not have cables connecting wing flaps and rudder to the pilots’ controls. It is all done by sending electronic signals. However, the plane has several back-up batteries that enable the instruments to work until the emergency power units kick in.

“If they had done nothing, the autopilot would have tried to fly the glide path,” said a former pilot. The plane would probably then have stalled and crashed. “So they have to lower the nose to maintain speed, then lift it just before hitting the ground.”

Coward, who lives in Valbonne in the south of France with his wife, said yesterday that he had thought it was “the end” for him - that the plane would land with an “almighty crash”. He added that “some thanks has to go to the man upstairs for giving us that little lift at the end”.

But he and Burkill, said one former pilot, did “a brilliant job”. If the angle is right, a plane gets the benefit of “ground effect” - the wings in effect trap a cushion of air underneath them that softens the landing.

The Boeing 777 has the biggest landing gear of any craft, with six wheels instead of four on each assembly. As the plane slammed into the grass before the start of the runway, the landing gear on the left side smashed upwards through the wing; the right-side landing gear was torn off.

“It wasn’t just one thud,” said Coward yesterday. “It was a series of thuds.”

The plane ploughed great gouges in the earth as it skidded hundreds of metres, skewed right and came to rest on the edge of the runway.

“I felt like I was in a washing machine,” said Jason Johnson, one of the passengers. “The wings were making cracking sounds. You think of your family and your loved ones.”

Others barely noticed that the plane had crash landed until oxygen masks fell from the overhead storage lockers.

The passengers fled down the emergency chutes that had been triggered when the crew opened the doors. Amazingly, nobody was killed and injuries were relatively minor.

How did one of the safest aircraft ever made come to crash-land, narrowly avoiding disaster, and why did both engines apparently shut down at the same time?

THE 777 is the first plane to be designed entirely on computers, with input from pilots from the outset. It is a long-range fuel-efficient workhorse. Since it started commercial operations in 1995, 777s have made more than 2m flights. Boeing claims that operators enjoy a “99% dispatch reliability rate”. In other words, 777s rarely go wrong.

According to one database, there have been only a handful of recent 777 incidents – and two of those were hijackings. The only fatality had been that of an airport worker who was burnt to death when a refuelling operation went wrong in 2001 in Denver, Colorado.

The pilots got much of what they asked for in designing the plane, including a highly automated “glass cockpit” that does away with all analogue gauges and presents flight information on bright, software-driven LCD displays. Integrated into the software is EICAS (engine indication and crew alerting system) which monitors the two engines and alerts the crew to any abnormalities.

Nancy Novaes, an American pilot who flew 777s until she retired last year, said: “This is a great plane to fly. It’s highly computerised, highly logical. It knows what it needs . . . and EICAS tells you what it wants.”

However, the 777 and its computers are not infallible - as investigators knew before last week’s crash.

Early in the evening of August 1, 2005, a Malaysia Airlines 777, en route from Perth, Australia, to Kuala Lumpur was climbing past 38,000ft towards its cruising level when the flight crew were confronted with what the official report on the incident described as “a situation that had previously been considered not possible”.

On the EICAS screen a “low speed” warning appeared, suggesting the plane was approaching the speed at which it would stall. But almost simultaneously, the primary flight display screen warned exactly the opposite: that the aircraft was approaching the overspeed limit, the maximum speed at which it is designed to operate.

Too slow or too fast? Before the crew could decide, the autopilot pitched up the nose and the 777 climbed for 3,000ft, while the air speed dropped from 270 knots to 158 knots - at which point the stall-warning horn correctly sounded and the stick-shakers activated.

The pilot prevented disaster by disconnecting the autopilot and pushing the nose down. But then the autothrottle kicked in, commanding more thrust from the engines. The nose pitched up again and, of its own volition, the aircraft climbed another 2,000ft until it was brought under control.

The plane landed safely but, as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report put it, the combination of a failed sensor and “a software anomaly” had created an “unexpected situation that had not been foreseen” and for which the crew had not been trained.

The sensor was a tiny “accelerometer” - a device used to measure the plane’s acceleration that is similar to those used in cars to deploy airbags.

Airlines were subsequently warned that they had to modify the plane’s software. Yesterday BA said it had received the directive and implemented it immediately.

Could a similar electronic or computer fault have occurred on flight BA038? Were the pilots not warned of engine failure or did a system erroneously shut down the engines?

One former 777 pilot believes that the accidental mechanical failure of both engines at the same time is unthinkable.

“There are separate autothrottles, a left computer and a right computer . . . everything is split. That is the philosophy of the plane,” he said. “For [both engines to fail] at the same time it has got to have been commanded. We are all aghast.”

In other words, it may have been an error in the computerised engine control systems. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is examining all possibilities and downloading full data from the flight recorders.

Experts noted that its initial report said it would be “examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation”.

As investigators picked over the crash site, other hypotheses were being aired. One was that a “bird strike” had shut down both engines. The impact of large birds such as Canada geese hitting the fans inside the jet engine can cause engine damage; but no witnesses have recalled seeing any flocks of geese or other birds in the vicinity.

Authorities also monitor flocks by radar and said there were none on Thursday.

“The possibility of geese is remote at that height,” said one pilot. “And though they bend the blades, the engine keeps producing power.”

Pictures of the crashed plane also suggest that this was not the cause. The blades in the plane’s starboard engine were undamaged.

Turbulence is another possibility, particularly at busy airports. Sudden wind shear or even the wake left by powerful jets can damage the surfaces of planes, sending them out of control. But again there seem to be no signs that such forces were at work.

A fuel problem was another hypothesis. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, internet forums populated by pilots were rife with speculation that BA038 had run out of fuel.

Some airlines, although not BA, are known to run their planes with as little fuel as possible to reduce costs: heavier planes use more fuel. However, this policy can be problematic when planes face unexpected headwinds or delays in landing. BA had got its sums wrong, went the theory.

It holds little water, however. “It is well known that if all the engines snuff it, fuel is the most common cause,” said David Learmount, operations and safety editor at Flight International magazine.

“But fuel exhaustion is not the issue here because the AAIB report says fuel was spilt all over the [crash site]. Luckily it didn’t catch fire.”

Learmount suggested, however, that water could have got into the fuel, frozen at high altitude, thawed as the plane came into land and caused a slush in the tanks. This may have blocked fuel to both engines. Reports yesterday suggested that BA ground staff were warned to check the fuel mix in all its 777s.

Fuel starvation in certain tanks is another possible explanation, because large jets like the 777 have multiple tanks in both wings. Some aircraft have additional tanks in the belly and even the tail.

Transferring fuel between the tanks during the flight to maintain the aircraft’s equilibrium is a routine process, controlled by sensors, pumps and valves. Like all technologies, it is not infallible.

On February 7, 2005, a Virgin Atlantic Airbus 340, flying from Hong Kong to Heathrow, was passing through Dutch airspace when, without warning, one of its four engines - the outer engine on the port wing - went dead.

The crew quickly established from the Airbus’s sophisticated displays that the amount of fuel contained in the inner tank, from which the engine was feeding, registered as “0”. What they did not realise was that the automatic transfer system between the tanks had failed.

The outer engine on the right wing also began to lose power and the warning display showed that its tank contained zero fuel. The captain immediately realised there was a “fuel management problem” and opened the valves between the tanks to begin a manual transfer. It worked, but the crew still declared a Mayday and diverted to Amsterdam.

Some experts are sceptical that such a problem affected BA038. One former pilot on the 777 pointed out that during landing, fuel is going directly from tank to engine - there may be no transferring from one tank to another - and it is unlikely that both engines would suffer such a problem at the same time.

THE wreckage of the plane will be removed from the runway tomorrow and the airport will start getting back to normal. But crash investigators will not produce a definitive report into the cause of the accident for months. Until then, suspicion is likely to remain with the avionics.

So far other 777s have been allowed to continue flying, but the implications are serious. A senior airline industry source said: “I have heard that BA are going to have to check every single one of their 777s. They are not grounding them, but they will be checking every one because the AAIB has identified that it seems to be something connected with electrics and avionics coming from the flight deck to the engines, because the engines seem to be okay.

“They will go through the records of every single 777 flight looking for similar issues. They will go through all the engineering logs to find out if have had any similar problems between the flight deck and the engines.

“Each 777 will be brought in one by one for a maintenance check to look at whether there are any untoward signs. They will have to do that out of good practice as much as anything else.”

Whatever the cause of the accident, it was a remarkable piece of flying by Coward and Burkill and an extraordinary escape for their passengers.

The pilots, hailed as heroes, have been modest about their achievement. But Novaes, before she retired, had experienced the reality of crisis in the cockpit.

“These pilots have practised flying with limited controls,” she said. “They wouldn’t panic. Bravery is saying, ‘I’m afraid, okay, so deal with it’. Most pilots really only have to think about themselves. They are in the front. They are first on the scene. If they take care of themselves, everybody behind them is safe.

“But afterwards you feel a tremendous sense of relief. You are on the ground and you're almost giddy. The entire glut of emotions is probable.

“The pilot is a human being who may be better practised and controlled than others, but they’re still human.”

Why did both engines fail? The competing theories

Bird strike: A flock would have to have struck and stopped both engines. But there is no evidence this happened. Verdict: implausible

Pilot error: A mistake by those flying the plane must always be considered by air traffic investigators. But it is unlikely that BA would have allowed the pilots to be hailed as heroes if there were any suspicion that they had made a mistake. Verdict: highly unlikely

Running out of fuel: Last week pilots’ internet forums buzzed with speculation that the plane had run out of fuel. But the interim accident report said that “a significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft”, suggesting the plane was not short of fuel. Verdict: very unlikely

Fuel contamination: Reports yesterday suggested that investigators were focusing on the possibility that the plane’s kerosene fuel had been contaminated with water. A poor fuel mix has, however, never been held responsible for an air crash and one would expect other planes that were refuelled in Beijing to have been affected as well. No such problems have been reported. Verdict: unlikely

Fuel management problem: Fuel is transferred as required between various tanks in the wings and centre of large planes. In one incident, two engines on an Airbus 340 failed, even though the plane had plenty of fuel, because the transfer system malfunctioned. But it is unlikely to happen to both engines at the same time. Verdict: possible, but unlikely

Computer glitch:This happened with a Malaysian Airlines 777 and a former 777 captain told The Sunday Times that for both engines to fail at the same time “it has got to be commanded” - ie, it was computer error in controlling the engines. Verdict: possible and many experts’ prime concern

Boeing 777: how it measures up

- There are about 670 Boeing 777s in service around the world. Last Thursday’s crash was the first involving the plane, although in Denver, Colorado, in 2001 a member of ground staff was killed while refuelling a 777 when the fuel hose malfunctioned.

- It was the first plane to be digitally designed using 3D computer graphics. Its flight-control system also differs from earlier Boeings in using electronics to control the wing flaps and rudder, rather than mechanical systems such as cables.

- The 209ft-long plane can carry between 305 and 440 passengers at a cruising speed of 615mph with a range of up to 8,300 miles.

- When it came into service in June 1995 it became the first twin-engined plane permitted to fly three hours from the nearest runway. Until then, no twin-engined plane could fly more than 60 minutes from a landing spot. Airlines liked its reduced fuel consumption compared with four-engine planes. Double-engine failures are also rare.

- The Boeing 777s have, however, been involved in at least 12 incidents where electrical systems have overheated during or before flights, four of which resulted in “major damage” to the power panels involved in controlling the plane, according to Britain’s Air Accidents Investigations Branch. Single engine failure or forced shutdown resulting in an early landing has occurred on 11 known occasions.

I agree with the comments of Dave from Bassingstoke. If, as it seems likely, a computer system glitch is found to be responsible for this incident it is time to reinstate the Flight Engineer to the operating crew. No F/E could honestly claim to better monitor all systems than does a computer, however when a system fault arises the pilots cannot ask the computers to call on many years of experience to use an alternate method of system control. A look at the comparative thickness of the MEL for a F/E crewed aircraft as compared to the non-F/E crewed types.

Tony Ryan, Wingham, NSW Australia

"Fatal" flaw?

etrust, Sydney, Australia

I think some of these so-called experts should go back to their books.

Birdstrikes cause loud bangs and engine vibrations amongst other things, which would have been noticed by the crew and passengers.

Fuel imbalances and lack of fuel in tanks would have been revealed by the aircraft warning systems long before it would have caused any problems to the flight .

The 777 Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System gives warnings for most modes down to 30 feet, not 600 feet.

Ice/water in the fuel may have been a possibility, but having said that, the 777 has ultrasonic water detectors in all tanks.

Ian, Sydney, Australia

It's time we took one step backwards, simplify the avionics, and bring back the Flight Engineer.

Dave, Basingstoke, UK

Are these 'BIG WIGS" retarded or what ??
Yea, the wonderfull world of the good old computer again. Wake the HELL up and ground these DAMM planes & check each & every one out before one crashes & kills endless numbers of people.
Are we worried that we will LOSE MONEY be grounding them ? Of course they are !!
WAKE UP & SMELL THE COFFEE !!!!!!!!!
THE HANDWRITING IS ON THE WALL !!!!

Michael A. Passentino, Temple, Tezas

I can't tell from the article whether the engines shut down or if they just didn't respond to the throttles. Since it's all fly by wire there may be no direct connection between the throttles and the fuel controllers.

R. Buckthal, Pleasanton, CA

Has it been that long since the crash at the Paris air show of the airbus??? You might want to revisit that artical. There is no mention in your artical of the F.A.D.E.C. The first 2 letters stand for FULL AUTHORITY. You might want to check with Boing to see what means for this aircraft. If you want to speculate at least focus on the fact that the engines were not producing enough power and not responding to pilot input. Ask Boing about Soft faults or what ever they are calling them these days. you might find that interesting too.

Lauren, Valley Springs, Calif

As an aircraft mechanic for 50+ years, I have always decried the accuracy of any report on an aircraft accident/incident. Yours, however, was the most accurate, pointed journalistic piece I have encountgered. Kudos to your research and writing staffs.

Ed Woerle, Rossville, Tennessee USA

Quite frankly, Boeing 777 has started to worry me... I've been flying in excess of 200.000 miles a year, out of which several long flights are on Triple7. But, in the past 60 days, there have been more incidents with B777 than anytime before. There was around five or six incidents with B777, out ot which three involved emergency landings. However, BA 38 was by far most serious one. Air France had two engine malfunctions and two emergency landings (one of which was in Russia) on its B777 birds...

Either the maintenance messed up on several birds, or just a freak set of circumstances...

I am not worried, and I will continue to fly B777 planes, but frankly, number of recent B777 incidents is worrying.

Theo Valich, Zagreb, Croatia

I would hazard a guess that in a plane as big as a 777 running out of fuel does not mean every last drop if you think about the rate at which it would be burned.

Lynda, tonbridge,

Excellent article, research, and discussion-

Sounds like computer/electronics problem much more likely.

A few questions-
Is there any evidence that cell phone signals can alter avionics/electronics on planes? What about IED jamming devices? Are any avionics wireless on the 777?
How long would it take for engines to 'spin down' without fuel, in a situation like this?
is there a specific toggle/switch/button to start/stop the engines akin to the Prius' start button?

Matt, Paly, Cali, USA

How many other aircraft designs can claim only 1 incident per year worldwide?
Would the 777 have this safety record if it was equipped with standard mechanical systems?
Accidents will happen. When they do, an investigation must be undertaken but I think that this second guessing of the technologies involved is ridiculous in light of the the 777's incredible safety record.
I guess it is human nature to (what if) .

Scott McAfee, Mt. Vernon, Wa./USA

It is a heroic story which cannot be explained but the heavy emphasis on the computer system as an infallible entity... there in lies the flaw...or someone is covering up part of the truth...

Nixon Stewart, London, United Kingdom

I can't see in any of the reports that there was plenty of fuel left in the tanks. There was a report if some spillage having foam sprayed over it, but no mention of how much was left.

To the layman surely running out of fuel looks the most likely cause.

David, Dubai, UAE

Simon F--look fatal up in the dictionary--it doesn't have to mean death, it also means something that causes destruction. While we're at it, no-one died in the "terminal" building either. Sheesh.
Fiona, London UK

Fiona F, London,

This rather sounds like great news for Virgin Atlantic with their old "4 Engines 4 Longhaul" slogan, and all other operators of Airbus 340's... I wonder if they will reconsider their 787 order, and come back to the old motto.

L Lemieux, London, UK

I was on a 777 coming into Heathrow 2.5 yrs ago & the pilot told us all there might be an emergency landing as he had a problem with the 'hydraulics'. (Hello thanks for that - flaps & under carriage) He said there would be emergency equip along the runway as a precaution & not to let that worry us (subsequently several people panicked in their seats).
I had visions of crashing & burning & being on the front page of the UK papers. I put my shoes on & wished I hadn't worn flammable trousers!
We did an extra circuit or two & he resolved the issue & thankfully landed safely. I'm wondering if it may have been a similar issue as it was the same type of plane.
The poor pilot was flushed red & sweating as we got off the plane which just confirmed how serious it could have been.

cherie, Surrey, UK

Could we please have a computwer like this in charge of White House foriegn policy? Such a glitch could be known as the Cheney affect. I would like to see this fellow report on matters of National interest Like Data protection.
He is Very very good.

ivor Manning, Paignton, Uk

What was 'Fatal' about the Flaw?
No-one was killed...So why use the term 'Fatal?'

Reporters arent what they used to be!

Simon F, Newcastle, UK

In excess of 600 aircraft delivered over 17 years, flying 2 trips a day. That is in excess of 200000 flights and probably double that. I would fly a 777 flown by a reputable carrier any day.
I would be more concerned over who is flying it and who is servicing it, these are the biggest factors in most accidents.

Mike, Wolverhampton, UK

Clearly there was some engine control malfunction.

At 600ft it is said that you have 35-40 secs to react to the problem. Should have the pilots made the aircraft as "clean" as possible to maximise the aircraft's ability to glide?

As a private pilot, I would have reduced flap to try to reach the runway

richard john williams, weybridge, surrey

UFOs? You're having a laugh.
Should I be worried? Get a bigger picture.

This is a super piece of informative and analytical journalism. This does not surprise me: when a 'near miss', for want of a better term, like this occurs over the capital I would expect the London Times' writers to sharpen their intellect and pens.

Neal, Airdrie, Scotland, UK

I wonder if the article was translated into Italian somewhere on the Italian press;it would have appreciated very much.

vittorio lamberti, vietri sul mare, italy

Richard Woods, Steven Swinford and Paul Eddy ... thanks guys for doing some great research - excellent piece of journalism.

Joe

Joe, Sydney, Australia

Good article. Surprised by some of the comments from readers.

UFOs? At 600 feet? No eyewitness, and there were several, spoke of a UFO.

Gordon, did you read the article? They didn't know they had the problem until after gear-down point, which is 2000ft. They were at 600ft when the problem occurred. The pilots were probably a bit busy getting the thing on the ground to raise the gear with no power. Rain? "Category 1 landing in good weather." Rain isn't good weather.

Running out of fuel? Each engine is fed by its own tank in the wing, which all other tanks transfer to, but not on final approach. What is the chance of both tanks running out at exactly the same time? Pretty much zero. Same applies to water contamination. It wouldn't have affected both engines simultaneously. One would have gone bfore the other.

Phil K, Luton, UK

Am I missing something here? The pilot demaned extra power to maintain the glide path and the engines did not respond, they do not apear to have stopped. If they had, then presumably the passengers would have heard them spool down. This must eliminate the possibility of running out of fuel and confirm that it is an engine control problem.

Nigel, Hereford,

Thank you for this marvellous article. It is well researched and written with a calm and analytical style. It is a relief to be treated as an intelligent and curious reader for once.

David Rochester, Liverppo, UK

At last a news story that not only collects all the known facts but takes the time to organize them in the most understandable way. Congratulations to a team that did its job

Anthony Nania, Canaan, Connecticut

Nice to read such a comprehensive article which covers the pros and cons of the situation. As a private pilot and a chartered engineer I travel a lot and get very frustrated by the standard of reporting in some papers on technical and aviation matters. The pilot in me also says well done to the cockpit crew for keeping the plane flying and not getting distracted by the techncial issues.

For those wondering why no communciaction was made from the pilots, well the rule I was taught (by both bush pilots and airline pilots) when I learnt to fly was; Aviate, Navigate and Communicate - in that order of priority. In other words fly the plane first and then navigate and then communcicate (to air-traffic and passengers).

J K Woodhouse, Brighton, England

I'm hold a PPL and My father is a 777 flight instructor for a Contiental Airlines. He started putting his students through simulated dead-stick (non-engine) landings last year. He called it the space shuttle approach. I had the opportunity to sit in on one of those simulator approaches last summer. What surprised me the most was that without the support of engines, the pilots had to start their flare (raise the nose) at about 200 feet, to slow the rate of descent; much sooner than on a normal approach (which is usually about 30-50 feet). Otherwise, the airplane would impact the ground to heavily. I was amazed to see that a plane of that size could be successfully landed dead-stick, and even more surprised that this sort of procedure was not part of standard training for most 777 pilots. Here is a video of the space shuttle landing dead-stick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py7E9fIase4 Notice how soon they start their flare. Well done to the pilots and crew of BA038.

Mr JM Jost, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

As peviously commented, an excellent article. The thing that struck me most was the ever shifting balance between human's fying the aircraft and computers. Something to watch?

While other contributors have rightly pointed out that we cannot know what happened until after the investigation I am disappointed to read some vitriolic comments attacking BA or the flight crew.

Perhaps also, it is a sign of the times that my first thoughts were along the lines of some kind if terrorist attack. Would some kind of directional EM interference cause a computer glitch? We are always told to turn off all electronic (and especially transmitting) equipment when landing.

I've never understood this but how ironic if it turns out to be some doofus phoning home while on final approach.

Wyn Tingley, Bristol, UK

The Jason Johnson quoted in the article was an Australian hoaxer who was interviewed live on Sky News. He wasnÂ´t on the flight.

Brian, Dublin,

My God, exceptional journalism is still alive in the English
language. Well written and informative article, the first I
have seen regarding this crash. The authors have
done an excellent job.

bob williams, Gainesville, Florida, US

I don't understand the automatic command error hypothesis. My understanding is that one of the crew issued a command to increase engine power, and it was not obeyed either.

steve, chester,

Great article.

Stewart Rose-Innes, London, United Kingdom

You can tell its a slow news week when a simple event like this is disected for every scrap of detail. Calm down. Nothing happened. People actually did die this week but for some reason they are not your top story. British media at its best.

Luke, London,

most probably electronics system failure

Rene Abad, Camiling, Philippines

If Gordon Brown's motorcade was driving below the flight on final approach, and given that they deploy RFI jammers to subvert improvised explosive devices. i.e. mobile phone controlled explosives, then quite likely Gordon Browns security team has crashed the avionics of the flight due to the close proximity. So I guess we'd call this another terrorist attack by the UK govenment then?!

John SMith, London,

the eye witness accounts of three cab drivers and a pilot on bbc world shortly after the incidfent all said there was extensive engine noise which would tend to indicate thrust reversers theory possible. also what about the also often repeated severe banking to the left - at 45degrees according to the abovementioned pilot

damon, london, UK

Never mind UFOs or terrorists - maybe a passenger's mobile phone was switched on during the approach and the signal interfered with the plane's avionics.

Steve, Glasgow, Scotland

"They ran out of fuel. And deserve to be fired and imprisioned. Their backslapping, curry and congratulations for a job well done is inappropriate and BA's attempt to put a brave face on grave pilot error."

To Bobby, Boca Raton, USA

Well done, Bobby, your informed and incisive explanation of the cause of the crash will save the AAIB months of investigation and a lot of money.

Pete Jones, LONDON,

Really well written and informative. I really enjoyed the style of the article and it was really well researched. An excellent news piece.

A. Paul, Lewisham,

This is starting to become reminiscent of the HAL 2000 computer system in Space Odyssey. Can a programmed computer software really be trusted as much as we think?

Very informative article.

Richard , Milan, Italy

As usual there are a few ufo nutters about and a few hand of god saved them all proclamations.We dont know the real cause of the accident yet but we do know that the pilot and co-pilot did a grand job and that the most likely cause of the accident was avionics controls.
The experts will, no doubt, find the real reason and this will make the plane even safer.

Terry, Hereford, UK

Good article, one thing though, aircraft always take off and land into wind, and, as the prevailing wind is from the west, runways 27 left and right are predominately used at Heathrow. 09 L & R (East) are switched to in nil wind or Easterly wind conditions, this is a practical requirement that has the added bonus of giving people below a break from the noise and not to do with a â€œpreferenceâ€
Incidentally, during a meeting of the Air Safety Board I was present at some years ago, the possibility of a commercial aircraft crashing in central London was discussed. The conclusion that it was a case of when and not if was rather depressing.

Anthony Higham, Edenbridge, UK

For many years,even decades we have read about systems being developed using mobile phone type technology to disable or cause malfunction of electronics in aircraft,vehiclesetc for use by defence services and even by police to stop stolen vehicles. Is it possible that such a device could have been used by terrorists which would cause catastrophic failure to a fly by wire control system .Surely all aircraft should be capa ble of full manual control by the pilot
to avoi d any such possibility.

Stephen Griffiths, Leominster, UK

From the unusual attitude reported, it would seem that there may have been a rolling moment cause by turbulence. Is it possible that the inertia on the small amount of fuel left after such a long flight forced it away from the intake for the engines?

Nigel Johnson, Toronto, Canada

The survival of the aircraft will allow the investigators to fly the aircraft on the ground, and hopefully reproduce the fault. The FDR data will allow test equipment to stimulate the avionics in precisely the same way. Lets hope the fault isnt intermittent.

Tim, Scotland, .

I first want to say this is one of the best written articles on an aircraft incident I have read coming from mainstream journalists. As a pilot I'm amazed at all the misconceptions that journalists have when it comes to flying and this article contained very few of those. Though I do take issue with your all too common assertion that planes "drop like a stone" when they lose their engines at low altitude. This 'stone' very nearly made the runway, covering almost 2 miles with only 600 feet of altitude and no extra speed to work with.

Eric Graves, Cambridgeshire, England

So - was the gear up or down when they realised there was a problem? Can the gear be lowered when there is no power?

Why can't all media reporting be at least as good as this!!!!!!

Stef Bishop, Dunstable, UK

Kudos for Woods, Swinford and Eddy for an extremely well researched and written article.

Dev M., San Francisco, CA, USA

Nice write up. A bit dramatic for those of us familiar with the 777 but generally accurate and a good initial assessment. Most professionals in the industry will not jump to conclusions before knowing a heck of a lot more information. One small point that is wrong in the article however. There were other aircraft that were qualified to fly beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport (ETOPS) long before the 777 came along. The Boeing 767 was one and there were certainly others.

Bob T., Toronto, Canada

Good report. Minor inaccuracy. The Malaysian incident showed a problem with TWO accelerometers (one failure had occurred 4 years previous but the software deemed it not to be serious enough to issue a maintenance advisory).

The main difference between the 2 incidents is that in 2005 the pilots managed a throttle change MANUALLY. Manual operation of the Heathrow thottles didn't help.

I'd also like to know if the Heathrow autopilot was swithed OFF (rather than ARMED).

Very suspicious though. It will be interesting to know whether there were any problems with the accelerometers. And we all know that software fixes aren't as straight forward as they should be.

Ian Powell, Hexham, UK

would it be possible to program the plane`s computor while it was parked in Beijing to shut both engines down on long finals at Heathrow ie a deiberate attempt at sabotage?

Nick Paxton, Northallerton , N Yorks

Animportant issue for those involved in flight safety to consider in and around major airports is the amount of open grassland around the runways. By landing on the grass before the runway not only was the forward speed of the plane arrested by it digging into the soft ground but in my belief a major fire was averted by the lack of heat and sparks that would have been generated by landing on the hard runway.

Grant Snowden, Checkendon, UK

I have some past familiarity with Flight Management Systems - the way this article reads makes me wonder if some part of the control infrastructure "thought", perhaps by loss or faulty telemetry, that the aircraft had landed. The airplane might have never gone to full manual control, and shut down when it calculated to have touched down.

At any rate, kudos go not only to the pilots, but to the design of the 777, which appears to have continued to be controllable despite loss of power.

Menno Aartsen, Fredericksburg, VA, USA

Not mentioned who manufactured the engines?

Peter Andrew, Montreal, Canada

Did it just run out of fuel?

Simple question, but nobody has mentioned it, where was the fuel spillage?

David Collard-Berry, Haslemere, UK

I immediately thought that software might be to blame when I first heard about the incident. It is something of a truism that no software is free of bugs and quite frightening when you consider how many modern aircraft rely completely on it.

Ernest, Loughborough, England

Great article. On the subject of why they lowered the gear, however, note that there were no signs of trouble until they reached 600ft, when the standard procedure is to lower the undercarriage at 2000ft. It seems unlikely they would have had time to retract it again.

Andrew, Glagow, Scotland

A well written article begins with :"There is a preference for flights into the airport to cross the capital in this direction because it is quieter than to have them take off over the city".

Around airports, the direction of flight , is governed by wind direction. Lift is needed to control an aircraft; it is generated by airspeed over the wings, thus, at low ground speed ( take off and landing), aircrafts fly "into" the wind to maximize airspeed (airspeed equals groundspeed plus windspeed). This is why runways are built in the direction of prevailing winds . In London, that is a 270 compass heading (or 090 in the opposite direction). The last zero is dropped, and the runway when aproached from the East, is named 27 (27L or left for the southernmost runway ); otherwise, it would become 09R.
(Look on Google Earth).

Noise reduction is a benefit derived from having Heathrow located upwind of London; aircrafts take off westward (full power), away from the city.

Regards.

Jp Demange, Brussels,

Does each tank have an indicator of fuel level? Should a switch to a full tank not be implemented automatically before the start of landing? We've all run out of fuel in our cars at some time or other if we're honest, I did twice :( If it's not a computer glitch (which it more than likely was) and they did run out of fuel, wasn't that a close shave?

Roz

Roz, Belfast,

Excellent article and I hate to pick any holes in it, but they reason they were landing from the east is that the wind was blowing from the west. This is the normal wind direction in most of UK and aircraft always land into wind to make landing easier and safer.

jaydkay, Reading, UK

The pilot of BA038 found himself in a situation where he could not any more control lift (he had lost power, and he could not lower the nose too much to regain airspeed, otherwise he would have flown the airceraft nose first into the ground).
He had run out of altitude (600ft is not very high when ou are loosing altitude). He is to be commended for having extended the flight path to its fullest before intersecting with the ground.
The Captain displayed extraordinary leadership talent for letting him continue flying the plane while assisting him.

"Chapeau bas" to both Gentlemen.
Regards.

Jp Demange, Brussels,

Er, did anyone check the gastank?

Burgess, Cramerton, North Carolina

With plane approaching to land in London pax normally take out their mobile phones (i have observed) .... has someone's mobile phone caused to affect the navigational system of the aircraft .... this is my gut feeling

John, london, England

Having just flown in 5 different 777's over the past 3 weeks (some of which belonged to BA) and covering some 25,000 miles in the process, I think you would have more chance of a power draining UFO landing on your roof than ahving a probelm in one of these magnificent aircraft.

Mark Wyatt, Sunshine Coast, Qld, Australia

Earlier this month a 14-year-old whizzkid derailed several trams on the computerised tramway system in the Polish city of Lodz using illegally acquired knowledge of the system, and a tv remote control which he had adapted using his precocious computer skills to send signals to the tramway computer to switch points. (Daily Telegraph January 11). Just a thought.

David, Ciechanow, Poland

If God had wanted us to fly, he wouldn't have invented Heathrow...

sue, Winchester,

maybe it was a ufo disguised as a plane-ha haha-steve tobias

martin, dundee,

ufos are known to interfere with powered devices... ufos are seen all over the United Kingdom, lately-- a plane goes down with odd loss of power and the reports naively say : looking for reason of loss of power...duh how stupid can a planet get ?

steve tobias, towson, MD/ USA

I am flying from Singapore to Manchester 1st March , by Singapore Airlines 777.. Should I be concerned about this problem,

William Jacobs, Melbourne , Australia

A long article, but filled with real information. Just what I'd expect from The Times.

Ernie, Merced, California

I think you could say it was fatal to the aircraft

Alan, Cheltenham,

An unusually fine article on a complex aviation topic.
I believe the 777 was the first to be approved for 180 minutes ETOPS (Extended-range Twin Operations) <u>right out the factory door</U>.
Other aircraft carry that certification, such as the B767, Airbus 310 and 330. ETOPS involves certain aircraft maintenance practices, specific pilot training, training for dispatchers, and a certification process of the airline based upon continued high reliability of their fleet.
Aircraft have had to earn their ETOPS upwards from 60 minute to a 180 maximum. Boeing achieved it (Equivalent to a golfer's hole-in-one) right from the get-go saving airlines millions in fuel. ETOPS saves fuel by flying a more direct route, (saved dollars and ecological benefits) on trans-oceanic routes.
The possibility of a well placed device to damage the aircraft must be considered, investigated, talked about, and hopefully, ruled out.
The 777 is still likely the safest Aircraft flying, ever.

Marc, Ottawa, On, Canada

Concise, exact, well written article, also understandable to the layman.

Daniel Nikles, Kilaben Bay, Australia

Great article very precise and descriptive.

Damian, Sydney, NSW

There have been other jet aircraft to loose both engines on approach. A 737 lost both engines on approach in the late 80's/early 90's. The engines were at idle when they went through heavy rain showers that extinguished both engines. The aircraft made an emergency landing in a field. The short term solution for that particular engine was to keep throttle above idle in those conditions. I would imagine that this theory has already been dismissed since no one speaks of heavy rain???

Fuel leaking at the crash site does not mean much. There will still be some fuel in the tanks when the pumps suck dry. Fuel floats on water .So there may have been water in the last few gulps. That seems to be the most suspicious item.

Contrary to procedure ( fired for sure), they should have kept the gear up if they feared not making the runway. Landing gear drag is very significant. Belly landing better than crash and it could have been a major crash.

Former 777 LG system engineer

Gordon, Issaquah, WA

180 mins for Two Eng A/C has been around since before the 777 however the 777 is the first aircraft to be given 180 mins without a proving time in service...a minor point I know, and otherwise a well written article.

Peter Thorpe, Sydney, Australia

At the risk of sounding paranoid, has the possibility of a terrorist act affecting the electronics/computer systems been considered by the experts?

Sian, Australia,

Sometimes we have to search through a ton of dross to find the dram of gold. The article really does show the quality level we are used to in the popular media. Pity that we can't get quality like this much more often.
Funny isn't it that the quality of the article is the outstanding feature commented on.

Bob Sewell, Barcaldine, Qld

Excellent article. Well written and extremely well researched.

Alex Hill, Sydney, Australia

I know nothing about aircraft and would not normally be interested. However this long article is so magnificently researched and put together, I read every word with fascination. Award-winning stuff!

Tim Dean, London, Englan

dont think you should call it a fatal flaw , there were no fatalities

Barry, chesham, uk

I have to fly on one of these on Jan 29. Toronto to Sydney. Good article.

George Sansom, Peth, ON, Canada

Good artical, well writen , well reserched and imforitive

Michael Riley, Glasgow, Scotland

I agree. Excellent article, even if a little dramatic.

S.N, Austin, Texas

Excellent article. This first time I have seen such a comprehensive article on this topic. Keep ip going. I will read such articles should there be more of them relating to safety in the air.

Elwyn Jenkins, Sydney, Australia

They ran out of fuel. And deserve to be fired and imprisioned. Their backslapping, curry and congratulations for a job well done is inappropriate and BA's attempt to put a brave face on grave pilot error.

Bobby, Boca Raton, USA

well done! good written and wery profetional article! Thanks!

Oleg, London, UK

I agree

anthony, winnipeg, MB Canada

Excellent article. Some failures however, are not reported publicly. My parents were on a flight operated by a middle eastern country. One of its engine's blew out over the Mediterranean and the plane turned around and limped all the way home to avoid public exposure of the failure. The US FAA was unaware of the incident.

A Waterhouse, Davis, Ca, USA

I have to agree with Peter; thank you for an excellent article.

Carrie, Toronto, Canada

What scares me is that the oxygen masks deployed and why would they do this at low altitude? With the reported fuel leak, having oxygen around is not a good thing.

Tim Curtis, Fife, WA

It is refreshing to read an article about an aviation incident that is accurate and not full of speculative nonsense from the so-called "aviation experts". I only hope that the crew are not being elevated to hero status as the British Midland B737 pilots were which crashed at Kegworth in 1989, and then went from "hero to zero" rapidly when the results of the investigation were known.

Paul, Dubai, UAE

This is an excellently researched article of a standard not usually seen in the media.

Peter Wordsworth, Sydney, Australia

Damage photos seem to show at least one engine was powered at impact. Could a computer glitch have caused premature deployment of thrust reversers-?

ARBE, Redmond, USA- washington