| Topic: | BA Flight Lands Short of Runway at Heathrow | |
| Posted by: | Kevin Regan | |
| Date/Time: | 27/01/08 00:26:00 |
| Thank you Richard for your contributions. They are always erudite but until your last post, somewhat lacking in humour or any advancement of the thread. I would have expected someone with your eye to detail to have picked up the initial spelling error of runaway by David Giles instead of leaving it so late. We have all perhaps speculated here too much, and we don't have the accident report in detail. I do stand corrected as apparently -70 degrees is an unusual temperature even over the Polar regions AND BA038 DID have an unusually unhindered approach. Apparently the approach to Heathrow no longer is a long slight decline but a steeper approach which allows pilots to 'glide' thus using up to a tonne less fuel in the approach. And we thought they were just trying to my our lives more bearable. Thus we may have a scenario where the fuel was extra cold, the descent allowed the engines to idle and with a clear approach BA038 had less queuing time to allow the fuel to warm. Supercold fuel, quicker landing approach and less demand on engines could therefore mean that the water content in the fuel had formed ice crystals which blocked the fuel lines, so when a demand for extra power was given, fuel could not reach the engines in sufficient quantity to give the required power to land conventionally. These may be unique circumstances to date that put in train the crash landing. That is to be hoped. However, the fact then remains that a revised landing approach which saves fuel by reducing power demands on the engines may then have itself contributed to the accident through these ice crystals not having time to thaw. We have not had many major accidents at Heathrow and we all want that statistic to remain. The proposal is that in the not too distant future there will be a line of 3 runways, each accepting landings, so we have a continual 3 lane airway passing over Central and West London. I for one do not see that prospect as reducing the risk of an aircrash short of the runways. I may be in a minority, subsequent posters will no doubt clarify what their support is for. Either AGAINST a 3rd runway or a FOR a 3rd runway. Let's see what individual posters feel. I would now want to say 'Gentlemen, start your engines' if it wasn't so inappropriate. OK, W4, who is FOR and who AGAINST a third runway. Post once for your preference. |