BA 777 lands short of runway at LHR

[Alonso]

[quote]you might be able to get a cracking Sim pit on the cheap

[expat]

Some one might wont to give BA a ring you might be able to get a cracking Sim pit on the cheap  ;)

Providing your garage is the same size as your house

Matt

[Fozzer]

I wouldn't mind betting that Greg, (Jet Black1), has got his beady eye on it, ready to add to the collection in his back yard... ;)....>>>>

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1199162504

Paul.... ...!

[Ivan]

In a post on another aviation forum there was speculation that BA, along with the help of Boeing would do their best to repair/rebuild G-YMMM to maintain their "no airframe written off" record since the 80s.. regardless of cost.

How many new parts do you call a repair... wingbox is killed in a quite bad way

or do they just build a new one and transfer all part numbers of the old one so they can say 'Hey, same serial'

[Springer6]

Not lack of fuel- reports of 10 tonnes remaining.
Not fuel contamination- both engines would not pack up together after a long flight .
Not Bird strike- they would have reported any feathers/carcasses found by now.
Electronics failure in engine control circuits ?- they are duplicated at least and separate  for each engine.

Here's a thought . Prime Minister Brown's motorcade was traveling to Heathrow  at the time. The Security Services are known to operate very high powered electronics jammers to protect such motorcades from remotely triggered roadside bombs etc. Could they have interfered with the engine control electronics at a critical time? It's just possible and perhaps no ther aircraft were affected as they were not in the critical position.
If this is indeed the cause we will never be told and some BS story will be concocted to explain the multiple engine failures

[FsNovice]

Springer, thats a lot of speculation on the jammer thing. I can pretty much guarrente that isnt the case, as it was several miles away from the terminals at the time!

[Springer6]

I understand it was at 600ft when the problem ocurred which would put the aircraft about 2 miles out......Brown was on the road at the time and the "known " technology has jammers with a range of 5km.Who knows what the Spooks have.
It is reported that the motorcade and aircraft almost met near the perimeter fence.

Guarantee or no, if it is in fact the case I can guarantee that we will never be told.

[C]

Not lack of fuel- reports of 10 tonnes remaining.
Not fuel contamination- both engines would not pack up together after a long flight .
Not Bird strike- they would have reported any feathers/carcasses found by now.
Electronics failure in engine control circuits ?- they are duplicated at least and separate  for each engine.

I think there may be some validity with all your points, particularly the last. As for the fuel contamination, it all depends on how/where it is picked up from the tanks, and more importantly what the contaminant is; whether (in the simplest terms) it is heavier or lighter than the aviation fuel, and of course the amount of contaminant - all of which could lead to the symptoms not showing until later on in the flight.

[Hagar]

I understand it was at 600ft when the problem ocurred which would put the aircraft about 2 miles out......Brown was on the road at the time and the "known " technology has jammers with a range of 5km.Who knows what the Spooks have.
It is reported that the motorcade and aircraft almost met near the perimeter fence.

An interesting theory but again based on pure speculation. One report states that Mr Brown was already aboard his aircraft. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1301161,00.html

After crash landing, it pulled up around 1,000 metres from a plane carrying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was about to fly to Beijing for an official visit.

His was one of many flights delayed by the incident, while more than 200 flights - mainly short-haul - had to be cancelled and 24 diverted to Luton, Stansted or Gatwick.

On board was Sky's political editor Adam Boulton, who said Mr Brown remained calm and joked: "Well you have got your story already then."

Guarantee or no, if it is in fact the case I can guarantee that we will never be told.

That's quite possible whatever the cause.

[Springer6]

Yes agreed on the contaminants , but don't the engines normally draw from separate tanks. Unlikely that the contaminant stopped both engines at the same time surely ?

[Hagar]

Yes agreed on the contaminants , but don't the engines normally draw from separate tanks. Unlikely that the contaminant stopped both engines at the same time surely ?

You're only assuming that they were both affected. No official statement has yet been made by the crew, the airline or the accident investigators.

[C]

Yes agreed on the contaminants , but don't the engines normally draw from separate tanks. Unlikely that the contaminant stopped both engines at the same time surely ?

Quite.

[expat]

In a post on another aviation forum there was speculation that BA, along with the help of Boeing would do their best to repair/rebuild G-YMMM to maintain their "no airframe written off" record since the 80s.. regardless of cost.

How many new parts do you call a repair... wingbox is killed in a quite bad way

or do they just build a new one and transfer all part numbers of the old one so they can say 'Hey, same serial'

About sums it up. Take engines for example. The only original part of an engine is the name plate that includes the serial number. You can over time change every component on an engine due to various reasons, the only part that remains every time is the name plate.
If they replaced the wing box (unlikely and it would not be a serial numbered part), does that change the aircraft, no more than you having an accident in your car and it being rebuilt. At the end of the day, it is a name plate on the aircraft that is the aircraft and not the aircraft......if that makes sense. If you saved the aircraft by changing the wings, is it the same aircraft, or if the wings are good and you change the fuselage, is it the same aircraft? If you transfer the name plate and serial umber to the new parts, then yes it is the same aircraft.

Matt

[Springer6]

Hagar , Yes I saw that report and at first thought it to be the case , but other reports have him on the road ( the journos were already on board) and being aware of the crash before arriving at the airport.

If the Sky News Adam Boulton thing is correct are we to understand that PM and Journos witnessed the crash through the aircraft window?

Who knows? I do know that the Security Services use some very powerful  
and broad spectrum electronic jammers . After all according to the airlines  even a humble mobile phone can cause an aircraft to fall from the sky

The 777 was designed long before current jammer technology was developed and so is unlikely to be protected from it

[C]

If the Sky News Adam Boulton thing is correct are we to understand that PM and Journos witnessed the crash through the aircraft window?

The PMs nearly always asleep when he sits down, so he probably missed it...