While we don't yet know the details, have enough information to say that 1) the approach was unstabilized, 2) the engines provided thrust when they initiated a go-around (too late), 3) no emergency was declared before the accident happened unlike the BA accident. The only thing in common with these two accidents is that they are the same model of airplane and that both landed short of the runway. We don't know whether it was pilot error, but it looks very unlikely to be the same problem, especially since Boeing reviewed all 777 aircraft after that accident. A third option of course is that the root cause was not found in the earlier investigation and that there is a different problem affecting the type, but so far pilot error seems to be the most likely cause.

It's not the same problem, as the engines responsed to thrust. The pilots applied thrust 8 seconds before impact, and the engines revved up to about 50% in that time.

Do we know if that is a reasonable rate of acceleration for a 777 engine?

It seems that regulations call for 6-7 secs from idle to full thrust.

1. http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-242588.html

Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for.

Highly knowledgeable people have commented on it and not said it was anything unusual, so, yes, I'd say it's reasonable. Jet engines don't change their output on a dime.

>Highly knowledgeable people have commented on it and not said it was anything unusual, so, yes, I'd say it's reasonable.

You know, there's not a single thing about your comment that's useful.

>Jet engines don't change their output on a dime.

Yeah, I know. That's the reason for the question.

What's not useful about that? Experts commenting on their field of expertise don't count for anything, or what?

This specific item has been addressed by people who know this stuff. They didn't indicate it was abnormal. How is that not useful?

>Highly knowledgeable people

Who? You're some guy on the Internet. I should take it on faith that you can tell who is knowledgeable and who is a blowhard?

> have commented on it and not said it was anything unusual, so, yes, I'd say it's reasonable.

Again, instead of providing a fact I have to trust the judgment of a person I do not know.

> Jet engines don't change their output on a dime.

It should have been obvious from my question that I know that much about turbines. Do you have any information specific to 777 engines or something comparable?

>Experts commenting on their field of expertise don't count for anything, or what?

They might. It depends who they are. I don't always believe everything I see on television or the Internet. Sometimes I like to know their reasoning.

Why the hell are you posting on an internet forum if you're not interested in what "some guy on the internet" has to say?

That's exactly what I'm saying :)

>Boeing reviewed all 777 aircraft after that accident.

Boeing, the same company who months ago reviewed their 787 batteries and found no reason to ground their planes?

It's hardly "another datapoint" when it's armchair speculation by a tabloid journalist from an infamous scandal rag. Admittedly it's actually not that badly written, but for context his other article published that day features nightmarish visions of San Francisco under 25 feet of water...

The initial conclusions from the US National Transportation Safety Board is that the engines were functioning normally; i.e. a totally different issue while landing. I doubt a Seoul-San Francisco flight in mid-July was likely to have experienced the same unusually cold temperatures that resulted in the BA038 fuel droplets freezing (over Siberia in January) either