Airport closed after 777 makes emergency landing short of the runway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm

Neill

On 17 Jan, 13:45, Neill wrote:
Airport closed after 777 makes emergency landing short of the runway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm

Neill

Blimey. Sounds like it was dealt with swiftly and professionally - BBC
London radio have just reported that 130 passengers were on board.

I note that one eyewitness quoted in the BBC story was a "John
Rowland", who sounds like he's a cabbie (though this isn't totally
clear)...

On Jan 17, 2:09 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 17 Jan, 13:45, Neill wrote:

Airport closed after 777 makes emergency landing short of the runway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm

Neill

Blimey. Sounds like it was dealt with swiftly and professionally - BBC
London radio have just reported that 130 passengers were on board.

I note that one eyewitness quoted in the BBC story was a "John
Rowland", who sounds like he's a cabbie (though this isn't totally
clear)...

It came down on the grass short of 27L, just cleared the perimeter
fence and Hatton Cross Underground station by all accounts. I'm trying
to see the old Royal Observer Corps opost on the TV coverage, as its
only a few yards away.

Neill

In message
,
Neill writes

Airport closed after 777 makes emergency landing short of the runway.

Only the south runway is closed: the north runway is still in use
(although there will doubtless be long delays and some diversions).
--
Paul Terry

On 17 Jan, 13:45, Neill wrote:
Airport closed after 777 makes emergency landing short of the runway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm

Neill

Just to clarify - David Learmont from the aviation news magazine
Flight International was just speaking on BBC News 24 and was
suggesting that this incident didn't appear to be an "Emergency
Landing" per se - i.e. it was not pre-planned as an emergency landing
procedure and the airport and indeed passengers were not informed
beforehand. Instead he was suggesting that it looked like a sudden
problem that became apparent very late in the approach to land, so I
guess that would make it a "crash landing".

BBC reporting 136 passengers were on board and all successfully
evacuated, with
London Ambulance Service reporting 4 minor injuries. The flight was
British Airways BA38 from Beijing, and the incident occurred at
12:42pm. There is of course a panoply of news sources on the net and
elsewhere so I won't continue to give a running commentary - the BBC
has some interesting aerial video taken from a helicopter.

Mizter T wrote:

I note that one eyewitness quoted in the BBC story was a "John
Rowland", who sounds like he's a cabbie (though this isn't totally
clear)...

It wasn't me.

On Jan 17, 2:36 pm, Mizter T wrote:



Just to clarify - David Learmont from the aviation news magazine
Flight International was just speaking on BBC News 24 and was
suggesting that this incident didn't appear to be an "Emergency
Landing" per se - i.e. it was not pre-planned as an emergency landing
procedure and the airport and indeed passengers were not informed
beforehand. Instead he was suggesting that it looked like a sudden
problem that became apparent very late in the approach to land, so I
guess that would make it a "crash landing".

BBC coverage is now describing it as a "crash" rather than "emergency"
landing. It would appear that whatever happened occured very late in
the approach. The other point being made is that the distruption to
Heathrow could last for some days if they cannot start using the
runway for takeoffs. The aircraft could also be difficult to remove as
the undercarriage has sheared off.

Neill

On 17 Jan, 14:43, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

I note that one eyewitness quoted in the BBC story was a "John
Rowland", who sounds like he's a cabbie (though this isn't totally
clear)...

It wasn't me.

I thought it unlikely, but the name did jump out at me!

On 17 Jan, 15:02, Neill wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:36 pm, Mizter T wrote:



Just to clarify - David Learmont from the aviation news magazine
Flight International was just speaking on BBC News 24 and was
suggesting that this incident didn't appear to be an "Emergency
Landing" per se - i.e. it was not pre-planned as an emergency landing
procedure and the airport and indeed passengers were not informed
beforehand. Instead he was suggesting that it looked like a sudden
problem that became apparent very late in the approach to land, so I
guess that would make it a "crash landing".

BBC coverage is now describing it as a "crash" rather than "emergency"
landing. It would appear that whatever happened occured very late in
the approach. The other point being made is that the distruption to
Heathrow could last for some days if they cannot start using the
runway for takeoffs. The aircraft could also be difficult to remove as
the undercarriage has sheared off.

Neill


The "emergency landing" phrase appears to have originated from a BAA
spokesman shortly after the event, which considering the timescale I'd
suggest is quite understandable.

This is from BAA's Heathrow Airport website:
http://www.heathrowairport.com/

quote
Heathrow Airport's southern runway was closed immediately after the
incident but has now re-opened for take-offs only. The northern runway
is operating for arriving aircraft.
/quote

That said all BA short haul flights from Heathrow have been cancelled,
though BMI state that they are operating normally. Some arrivals have
been and might still be diverted to other airports.

News 24 are reporting that friends and relatives at the airport are
somewhat miffed about the lack of information about the uninjured
passengers who are being held airside. Pure speculation on my part but
I dare suggest this might be the set procedure for two reasons...

(1) the passengers are eyewitnesses to the event, so investigators
might well wish to interview them and take statements whilst their
memory is fresh, and...
(2) I guess the authorities would wish to satisfy themselves that none
of the passengers were in any way involved in causing the incident to
occur (which of course doesn't presently seem likely, but still this
would be a fair enough precaution to take).

On 17 Jan, 15:02, Neill wrote:
BBC coverage is now describing it as a "crash" rather than "emergency"
landing. It would appear that whatever happened occured very late in
the approach. The other point being made is that the distruption to
Heathrow could last for some days if they cannot start using the
runway for takeoffs. The aircraft could also be difficult to remove as
the undercarriage has sheared off.

Since it came down short of the runway and it seems there was no
emergency declared from the aircraft beforehand I wouldn't be
surprised if he got hit by sudden windshear. If that is the case they
were bloody lucky they made it down in one piece.

B2003