Aircraft low on approach before touchdown in the grass. Note that the landing and taxi lights are on indicating that there is no electrical failure. Had there been, the lights would’ve been off as a function of the automatic electrical load sheading of the system.
Time lapse video of the aircraft being removed
There seems to be an error with the video so you have to click it forward to about the 00:03 mark to get it to run.
Wow those are interesting pictures. It’s a good thing they ran out of fuel, otherwise they might have been to heavy to glide to the grassy knoll.
Serious photos!!!
Unfortunately I guess we have to wait the 30 days the UK Authorities have until they make public their first report.
They appear to be leaning towards fuel contamination as the cause, as reported by Aviation Weekly, quoting sources within the investigation.
A fuel contamination issue is certainly plausible… but not fuel exhaustion.
LOL. Easly confussed.
UK Press Assoc. Jan 24/08
BA crash: six previous engine failures recorded
Both engines of the British Airways jet that crash-landed at Heathrow Airport were still running when it came down, investigators have revealed.
Disaster was narrowly averted when the Boeing 777, carrying 136 passengers and 16 crew, lost power in mid-air as it approached the airport on January 17.
American investigators have recorded six previous engine failures involving the same type of aircraft, it has emerged.
The most recent was in September 2006, when a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777’s right engine shut down near Brisbane, Australia.
The US National Transportation Safety Board’s website lists another five incidents, including one in August 2005 where a 777 lost thrust after taking off from Perth, Australia.
A British aviation industry source stressed seven engine failures was “not a large figure” given the aircraft’s long flight history and questioned how similar the previous incidents were to this month’s BA crash-landing.
The Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) has issued an update, indicating its inquiry into the Heathrow incident may be focusing on the aircraft’s fuel supply system.
Various theories about what caused the jet to lose power have been put forward, including the possibility of fuel contamination.
The AAIB said it was carrying out a “detailed analysis and examination of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine fuel nozzles”.
It repeated that the Boeing’s twin Rolls-Royce engines had failed to respond to demands for more thrust as it came in to land.
Gotta love newspaper reporting…
Sooo, reading this article makes it sound like engine failure when in reality it was a good possibility another mitigating factor that caused the engine to stop functioning.
The engine from reading this article did not fail if it was running.
Something else failed, but the engine from what I read only responded to what it was told and if it was fuel exhaustion, those engines wouldn’t have been running. If it was fuel contamanination there may have been enough fuel to allow for reduced power.
In my eyes, an engine failure, especially on a jet would have more catastrophic effects, like that Souix City jet that had internal engine parts come apart in mid flight severing the hydraulic system that assisted on flight controls.
Usually, with engine failures, something will be departing that airplane prematurely due to the nature of the high intensity operating environment and the engine cowling will suffer some kind of damage.
Everything I read thus far indicates everything was normal until short final.
Allen
NTSB ADVISORY
National Transportation Safety BoardWashington,
DC 20594 January 24, 2008
BRITISH ISSUE UPDATE ON B-777 ACCIDENT AT LONDON HEATHROW
The United Kingdom’s Air Accident Investigation Board (AAIB), which is leading the investigation into the January 17, 2008, accident in which a British Airways Boeing 777-236ER landed short of Runway 27L at London Heathrow Airport, issued a report today on the progress of their investigation.
At their request, we are assisting in the dissemination of the AAIB report, which follows:
Accident to a Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM, on 17 January 2008 at 1243 hrs.
Initial Report Update 23 January 2008.
Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) 1st Preliminary Report on Friday 18th January 2008 at 1700 hrs, work has continued on all fronts to identify why neither engine responded to throttle lever inputs during the final approach. The 150 tonne aircraft was moved from the threshold of Runway 27L to an airport apron on Sunday evening, allowing the airport to return to normal operations.
The AAIB, sensitive to the needs of the industry including Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Airways and other Boeing 777 operators and crews, is issuing this update to provide such further factual information as is now available.
As previously reported, whilst the aircraft was stabilised on an ILS approach with the autopilot engaged, the autothrust system commanded an increase in thrust from both engines. The engines both initially responded but after about 3 seconds the thrust of the right engine reduced. Some eight seconds later the thrust reduced on the left engine to a similar level. The engines did not shut down and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust.
Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust.
All possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and continued lack of response of the engines to throttle lever inputs are being examined, in close cooperation with Boeing, Rolls Royce and British Airways. This work includes a detailed analysis and examination of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine fuel nozzles.
Further factual information will be released as and when available.
Great pics here. What a stroke of luck capturing that ‘deadstick’ 777. Pretty amazing, the plane that was certified to fly extended distances beyond places to land because the engines were said to be so reliable.
There is one possiblity I haven’t heard mentioned yet. It was done on purpose. Isn’t this plane equiped with a remote control override?
God I hope your kidding! No a/c is so equipped.
Welcome to FA BTW.
Not kidding at all. Check it out.
aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.c … IssueID=23
airliners.net/discussions/te … ain/30022/
black.csl.uiuc.edu/~chadjic/itr/itrintro.html
Gandering through the above links, none of them refer to a specific plane in service with remote control capability.
It seemed they all contained proposals or patents to implement such technology, but none that I saw showed an reference to it being put in place.
Allen
That’s what I’m saying. Good gravy why have a pilot at all than?
True definition of “safety pilot”? 
Eventually UAL will fly the UAV…
Supervisor: “Hey who’s supposed to be controlling UAV123? Jetttttsssooooonnnn!!!”
Yes, why?
Aircraft of the future will have 2 seats in the cockpit: One for the pilot and one for a dog. The pilot will monitor the instruments and the dog will bite the pilot if the pilot touches anything.
CFIJames joke here 
Update released February 18, 2008 CLICK HERE
Heathrow plane crash ‘not mechanical failure’
By David Millward, Transport Editor
Last Updated: 7:03pm GMT 18/02/2008
A fuel leak from the British Airways Boeing 777 which crash-landed at Heathrow could have engulfed passengers and crew in a fireball, a report has revealed.
The latest Air Accidents Investigation Branch report found that valves designed to cut off fuel in the event of an emergency were open when its team examined the aircraft.
While the AAIB failed to find the reason why the aircraft was forced to crash land at Heathrow last month, its study showed just how close the 136 passengers and 16 crew came to disaster.
The open valves led to a loss of fuel from the aircraft.
“This was not causal to the accident but could have had serious consequences in the event of a fire during the evacuation,” the report said.
The valves are designed to stop fuel supply immediately in the event of an accident or an engine fire. They should be cut off first - either automatically or manually - before the fire handle, which works the onboard fire extinguisher, is turned.
But the original design of the wiring was found to prevent this happening, leading Boeing to advise airlines to modify this.
The Federal Aviation Authority in Washington has set a deadline of July 2010 for this work to be done for all 667 Boeing 777s in service.
However, this modification had not been carried out on this particular BA plane. As a result, the two procedures were carried out manually by Peter Burkill, the captain, and John Coward, his first officer. With time short, they did so simultaneously.
This, however, led to one of the valves not being cut off, leading to a loss of fuel from the aircraft.
“It’s a bit like turning a fire extinguisher onto an engine before you have turned off the ignition,” one industry expert explained.
BA said the two men followed BA’s standard procedures, which had been agreed with Boeing. However, the AAIB has told Boeing to instruct airlines to make sure that the fuel valve is cut off before the fire handle is operated.
“We have already implemented these changes to reflect the latest advice,” a BA spokesman said.
The investigation, however, failed to identify why the engines failed to receive enough thrust as they approached Heathrow.
Investigators found no evidence of mechanical failure. They also ruled out the possibility that fuel froze during the flight or was contaminated, or that birdstrike was to blame.
