To msjr777; level flight requires a definitive level of energy, below which the aircraft will descend - simple physics.
Approach is conducted with slats/flaps at the optimum settings to mantain the required glideslope, and any deviation is controlled by engine power alone; that is the only direct control avaliable to the pilot on final approach.
Once the engine control had been lost at only two miles out, whatever the cause of it, the outcome was predictable and unavoidable.
If the plane came short by 1,000.Why didn't he remove flaps,lift nose to bring air lift to the wings which would lift the plane over the 1,000 ft zone which would allow the plane to reach the landing zone at the airport.
Low/no engine power, no flaps and nose up on final approach = stall and severe crash. Its far, far better to make a reasonable landing short of the runway than to risk a stall.
Everything points to the obvious cause...the plane ran out of fuel (aka failure of fuel availability)....this is simply a case of poor preflight planning by the captain (aka pilot error). It's funny how British Airways and the industry have been dancing around this simple fact without admitting to it for months now.
Beside, we always keep a detailed fuel log on a printed DETAILED flight plan...any deviation or
shortage will cause the flight to divert to an alternate airport...
Boeing is NOT Airbus, who was videotaped stealing
the flight recorder of the 320 Paris crash, grossly falsified them and blackballed the crew, falsely blaming them for their deeply flawed autopilot systems.
Very good and professional video. Non emotional and trully looking towards finding the causes of this accident in order to prevent future events like this to happen.
To msjr777; level flight requires a definitive level of energy, below which the aircraft will descend - simple physics.
Approach is conducted with slats/flaps at the optimum settings to mantain the required glideslope, and any deviation is controlled by engine power alone; that is the only direct control avaliable to the pilot on final approach.
Once the engine control had been lost at only two miles out, whatever the cause of it, the outcome was predictable and unavoidable.
jonnybee48 2 years ago
What a shame. The boeing 777 has one or the best safety record in aviation history.
14waltersn 3 years ago 2
Still no deaths.
fightingtemeraire 2 years ago
If the plane came short by 1,000.Why didn't he remove flaps,lift nose to bring air lift to the wings which would lift the plane over the 1,000 ft zone which would allow the plane to reach the landing zone at the airport.
msjr777 3 years ago
Less Flaps Nose Up with no power = Stall......Go Back to School..........
javug 2 years ago
you control level forceing air under the wings which cause lift to make up range if they had no fuel.
msjr777 2 years ago
Low/no engine power, no flaps and nose up on final approach = stall and severe crash. Its far, far better to make a reasonable landing short of the runway than to risk a stall.
fightingtemeraire 2 years ago
00:26? 17 january 2007 ????
fsxfanatic 3 years ago
It should be 2008.
airsafe 3 years ago
Everything points to the obvious cause...the plane ran out of fuel (aka failure of fuel availability)....this is simply a case of poor preflight planning by the captain (aka pilot error). It's funny how British Airways and the industry have been dancing around this simple fact without admitting to it for months now.
surfandsand2 3 years ago
"Significant fuel leak after the crash"...
Beside, we always keep a detailed fuel log on a printed DETAILED flight plan...any deviation or
shortage will cause the flight to divert to an alternate airport...
Boeing is NOT Airbus, who was videotaped stealing
the flight recorder of the 320 Paris crash, grossly falsified them and blackballed the crew, falsely blaming them for their deeply flawed autopilot systems.
hotspur666 3 years ago
Very good and professional video. Non emotional and trully looking towards finding the causes of this accident in order to prevent future events like this to happen.
Capt. Gomes - MD-11, A-321.
almeidamd11 4 years ago
Might be interesting but the presentation style is very boring.
astrajaseuk 4 years ago
I completley agree,.. You have to be a serious boffin to stay focused on this
999chris 3 years ago 2