BA 777 crash at Heathrow

[Blueskies]

What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Blueskies wrote:
>What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html

passenger hack into the entertainment system?

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Ron A.[_3_]]

It almost sounds like reverse thrust came on at least one engine.

Steeper than normal glideslope and offset from runway center line.



"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:7e5e63dd56a39@uwe...
> Blueskies wrote:
>>What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
>>could have been an issue.
>>
>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html
>
> passenger hack into the entertainment system?
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>

[Bob Furtaw]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron A." >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: BA 777 crash at Heathrow

> It almost sounds like reverse thrust came on at least one engine.
>
> Steeper than normal glideslope and offset from runway center line.
>
> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
> news:7e5e63dd56a39@uwe...
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
>>>could have been an issue.
>>>
>>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html
>>
>> passenger hack into the entertainment system?
>> --
>> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>>

I'm betting on wind shear or microburst...or he was told "land and hold
short" Bob F.

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 18, 4:23 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.


Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude. Tells me that the
pilot might somehow have got his aerodynamic fundamentals wrong in
those moments of unexpectedness. If he was looking to maximize a
glide, it strikes me as odd that the plane wasn't either level or even
nose-down a touch.

Ramapriya
[looking forward to the pilots to tear me up now :o)]

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote:

>What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html

Regardless of the cause the outcome was positive.

Ron Lee

[Slug]

D Ramapriya wrote:
> On Jan 18, 4:23 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
>
> Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
> witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
> landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude. Tells me that the
> pilot might somehow have got his aerodynamic fundamentals wrong in
> those moments of unexpectedness. If he was looking to maximize a
> glide, it strikes me as odd that the plane wasn't either level or even
> nose-down a touch.
>
> Ramapriya
> [looking forward to the pilots to tear me up now :o)]

He was getting a blow job from a male flight attendant and
he got bit

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Ron A." > wrote in news:TLSjj.40078$Ux2.4927@attbi_s22:

> It almost sounds like reverse thrust came on at least one engine.
>
> Steeper than normal glideslope and offset from runway center line.
>


Best guess yet. I hadn't thought of that, but it's a distinct possibility.
A loss of one engine would not be that big an issue at that stage of the
flight, even with full flaps out, but a reverser deployment woud make a ot
of sense from what I've heard about the accident. Thee are a LOT of
safeties on the reversers, but it has happened to airplanes in the past.



Bertie

[LWG]

The most likely cause is that the flight crew found out that their chief
flight attendant was Hillary, and they all panicked at the same time.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Ron A." > wrote in news:TLSjj.40078$Ux2.4927@attbi_s22:
>
>> It almost sounds like reverse thrust came on at least one engine.
>>
>> Steeper than normal glideslope and offset from runway center line.
>>
>
>
> Best guess yet. I hadn't thought of that, but it's a distinct possibility.
> A loss of one engine would not be that big an issue at that stage of the
> flight, even with full flaps out, but a reverser deployment woud make a ot
> of sense from what I've heard about the accident. Thee are a LOT of
> safeties on the reversers, but it has happened to airplanes in the past.
>
>
>
> Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Best guess yet. I hadn't thought of that, but it's a distinct possibility.
> A loss of one engine would not be that big an issue at that stage of the
> flight, even with full flaps out, but a reverser deployment woud make a ot
> of sense from what I've heard about the accident. Thee are a LOT of
> safeties on the reversers, but it has happened to airplanes in the past.
>
> Bertie

What happens to pilots of flights that end like this if somebody on
the flight deck engaged the reversers prematurely?

There was that Lauda air business back in the 90s, I recall. Reverse
thruster(s) deployed in flight. Nobody made it.

[Ridge]

I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics on
final.


"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
> could have been an issue.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html
>
>
>
>

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ridge > wrote:
>
> I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics on
> final.

Confirmed on that. The Beeb, The Age, the SMH, and others are
now reporting the same.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHkBSNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAh10AKCq8dux20K7Pnjpvv6eYy 1zQwXAgACg17mE
eD3HSNLGv7B/aIfTZ+ehVtw=
=E5aE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> Best guess yet. I hadn't thought of that, but it's a distinct
>> possibility. A loss of one engine would not be that big an issue at
>> that stage of the flight, even with full flaps out, but a reverser
>> deployment woud make a ot of sense from what I've heard about the
>> accident. Thee are a LOT of safeties on the reversers, but it has
>> happened to airplanes in the past.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What happens to pilots of flights that end like this if somebody on
> the flight deck engaged the reversers prematurely?


Well, it wouldn't have been because they selected reverse if that's what
happened. They couldn't if they wanted to anyway. The airplane must be on
the ground to enable reverse. You wouldn't have your hand anywhere near the
levers anyway. If it happened it would be down to some sort of problem with
the airplane. bit it's early days yet anyway.
>
> There was that Lauda air business back in the 90s, I recall. Reverse
> thruster(s) deployed in flight. Nobody made it.

Yeah, that's right. 767, I think. Different flight situation. the reverser
kicked off events, but it was mach induced problems that killed them. It's
one of the thngs I would fear the most. We do it in the sim but i onder how
well it woudl all work on the day..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Ridge" > wrote in
:

>
> I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics
> on final.

Well, the news, ya know?

If they lost both engines they would have lost a lot of electrics unless
they had the APU runnning, which they would not have done most likely.


Bertie

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

James Robinson > wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>
>>> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
>>> could have been an issue.
>>>
>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainp
>>> lane17.html
>>
>> Regardless of the cause the outcome was positive.
>
>... except for the airplane.

True, but my comment meant (even though I was not clear) that no
people were killed.

Ron Lee

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> and offset from runway center line.
>

How so? The first skid marks are right on the extended centerline.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-01-18, Blueskies > wrote:
> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation?

They've already ruled that out (or at least, they've ruled out fuel
_exhaustion_).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Stefan]

Bob Furtaw schrieb:

> I'm betting on wind shear or microburst...or he was told "land and hold
> short" Bob F.

Bet accepted. How much?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
> witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
> landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.

A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
wheelbarrow one of those.

The only eyewitness statements that I'd rely on at this point is that it
came over the boundary fence very low, and that it crashed. A private
pilot waiting in the car park said he saw it banked at 45 degrees. I
have a hard time believing it was banked that far over - the passengers
would have said something, and the outcome would have been quite
different.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 18, 1:37 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
> > Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
> > witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
> > landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.
>
> A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
> wheelbarrow one of those.


But this wasn't a normal landing. The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
power. My Q is that once it was known that power was off, shouldn't
the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster? As it
transpired, it came down some 300 meters from the runway edge.

Wheelbarrowing is just not on, I'd imagine. If there was that much
airspeed, why'd he crash-land short in the first place?


> From the sunny Isle of Man.

Sunny in mid-Jan? :)

Ramapriya

[Thomas Borchert]

D,

> But this wasn't a normal landing.
> The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
> when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
> power.

Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to ask
yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take months,
even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to be fact.
The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will be our first
clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah, humbug!

>My Q is that once it was known that power was off,

WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!

> shouldn't
> the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
> be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
> with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster?

Are you a pilot? The proper reaction to a power loss (which we didn't
know happened) is depending on so many other factors that we as
outsiders can't say. That's why there are professional accident
investigators working on this.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 18, 5:11 pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> D,
>
> > But this wasn't a normal landing.
> > The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
> > when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
> > power.
>
> Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to ask
> yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take months,
> even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to be fact.
> The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will be our first
> clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah, humbug!
>
> >My Q is that once it was known that power was off,
>
> WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!


Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain himself.


>
> > shouldn't
> > the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
> > be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
> > with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster?
>
> Are you a pilot?


Nope, and never claimed to be one.

Ramapriya


> The proper reaction to a power loss (which we didn't
> know happened) is depending on so many other factors that we as
> outsiders can't say. That's why there are professional accident
> investigators working on this.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

D,

> Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain himself.
>

If the pilot of that flight would talk to the media before talking to
his bosses and the AIB, he would be beyond stupid. Also, from what I
read on Sky's website, they are citing "sources". Yeah, right.

They may even be right, you know. But it is really smart to wait for the
pros to analyze the accident.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Blueskies wrote:
> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html
>
>
>
>


BBC America reported a second hand report that the pilot said that all
power was loss.

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 18, 6:11 pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> D,
>
> > Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain himself.
>
> If the pilot of that flight would talk to the media before talking to
> his bosses and the AIB, he would be beyond stupid. Also, from what I
> read on Sky's website, they are citing "sources". Yeah, right.
>
> They may even be right, you know. But it is really smart to wait for the
> pros to analyze the accident.


I concur, yes.

Ramapriya

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:c8a37c1e-7561-4bc0-
:

> On Jan 18, 1:37 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>
>> > Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
>> > witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
>> > landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.
>>
>> A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
>> wheelbarrow one of those.
>
>
> But this wasn't a normal landing. The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
> when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
> power. My Q is that once it was known that power was off, shouldn't
> the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
> be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
> with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster? As it
> transpired, it came down some 300 meters from the runway edge.

Yeah, but inside the airport perimiter. whatever he did as far as
hanling was concerned, it would have been a lot worse had he landed
somewhere even shorter. That runway end is littered with roads, hotels,
bus stops, BA offices , all sorts of nasty things to hit. Whatever
happened he got it down without killing anyone. The injuries were
probably mostly in the evacuation.

>
> Wheelbarrowing is just not on, I'd imagine. If there was that much
> airspeed, why'd he crash-land short in the first place?



Why would hae have "that much airspeed"? At 500' he would have been back
to Vref+5 or maybe a bit higher. Pushing the nose down might have got
him some speed but at the cost of altitude and glide. The tiny bit of
surplus speed he had was worth sacrificing to avoid hitting something
nasty.
In any case, the "any landing you can walk away from" rule applies.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:35d049b5-4987-4d4a-b006-
:

> On Jan 18, 5:11 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> D,
>>
>> > But this wasn't a normal landing.
>> > The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
>> > when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
>> > power.
>>
>> Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to ask
>> yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take months,
>> even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to be fact.
>> The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will be our first
>> clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah, humbug!
>>
>> >My Q is that once it was known that power was off,
>>
>> WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!
>
>
> Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain himself.
>


Sky News is almost as full of **** as Fox.

Well it would be since it's owned by the same person.

Let me guess, they made it "Breaking news" for about 12 hours, right?



Bertie

[Gilbert Smith]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>D Ramapriya > wrote in news:c8a37c1e-7561-4bc0-
:
>
>> On Jan 18, 1:37 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-18, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Albeit that they aren't always fully reliable in such matters, eye-
>>> > witness reports seem to indicate that in the final moments before
>>> > landing, the 777 had a distinct nose-up attitude.
>>>
>>> A normal landing in a B777 is distinctly nose up. I wouldn't like to
>>> wheelbarrow one of those.
>>
>>
>> But this wasn't a normal landing. The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
>> when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
>> power. My Q is that once it was known that power was off, shouldn't
>> the pilot have pushed the nose down a bit to increase the airspeed to
>> be able to land as further down as possible since a nose-up attitude
>> with idling or shut engines can only sink the aircraft faster? As it
>> transpired, it came down some 300 meters from the runway edge.
>
>Yeah, but inside the airport perimiter. whatever he did as far as
>hanling was concerned, it would have been a lot worse had he landed
>somewhere even shorter. That runway end is littered with roads, hotels,
>bus stops, BA offices , all sorts of nasty things to hit. Whatever
>happened he got it down without killing anyone. The injuries were
>probably mostly in the evacuation.
>
>>
>> Wheelbarrowing is just not on, I'd imagine. If there was that much
>> airspeed, why'd he crash-land short in the first place?
>
>
>
>Why would hae have "that much airspeed"? At 500' he would have been back
>to Vref+5 or maybe a bit higher. Pushing the nose down might have got
>him some speed but at the cost of altitude and glide. The tiny bit of
>surplus speed he had was worth sacrificing to avoid hitting something
>nasty.
>In any case, the "any landing you can walk away from" rule applies.
>
>
>Bertie
Absolutely right.

In the gliding movement we are taught to aim at the base of the hedge
if undershooting, then hop over it if possible. This is making use of
ground effect of course, perhaps less of a factor with a passenger
jet.

On a general point, the media always praise the wonderful pilot, he
managed to avoid all the worst hazards, etc. etc. As if anyone would
fly into the side of a building if he could avoid it. Who is thinking
of the passengers at a moment like that ??

Gilbert.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 5:23*pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritai...

All the speculation on here is amusing as usual.

It will most likely turn out to be one of two things:

1. Pilot error (he may try to blame the equipment for his own mistake,
that has happened before).
2. Some system failure, or combination of configurations that resulted
in an unexpected result.

My money is on 1. given that the reports state that the glideslope was
unusual, and he may simply have gotten himself behind the power curve.

We should know what really happened in about two weeks when the
investigators have finished reviewing the flight data recorder and
voice recorder data, along with their interviews of the crew and pax
and inspection of the plane and impact site.

The airplane will probably be flying again within 6 months to a year.
Boeing sent an AOG team to India once to repair a 747 that was damaged
worse than this 777 in a landing accident, and had it flying again in
about that time.

Dean

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
> Boeing sent an AOG team
^^^
What's an AOG team?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Al G[_1_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>> Boeing sent an AOG team
> ^^^
> What's an AOG team?
> --

"Aircraft On Ground"?

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gilbert Smith > wrote in
:
>
> In the gliding movement we are taught to aim at the base of the hedge
> if undershooting, then hop over it if possible. This is making use of
> ground effect of course, perhaps less of a factor with a passenger
> jet.

No, they work just the same as any other airplane. They're more like
gliders than they are like lightplanes that way, in fact.
>
> On a general point, the media always praise the wonderful pilot, he
> managed to avoid all the worst hazards, etc. etc. As if anyone would
> fly into the side of a building if he could avoid it. Who is thinking
> of the passengers at a moment like that ??
>

Really. The old "if I keep my ass in one piece then the passengers will
follow" adage never fails.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>> Boeing sent an AOG team
> ^^^
> What's an AOG team?

Aircraft On Ground. That one fits the description if any one ever did.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 17, 5:23*pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
>> shear cou
> ld have been an issue.
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritai.
>> ..
>
> All the speculation on here is amusing as usual.
>
> It will most likely turn out to be one of two things:
>
> 1. Pilot error (he may try to blame the equipment for his own mistake,
> that has happened before).
> 2. Some system failure, or combination of configurations that resulted
> in an unexpected result.
>
> My money is on 1. given that the reports state that the glideslope was
> unusual, and he may simply have gotten himself behind the power curve.

Nah,the power curve not as big an issue these days. Spool up times are
almost as fast as pistons and it probably had some sort of Alpha floor
protection anyway. I'll know shortly because I'll be talking to a 777
friend this afternoon.
>


Bertie

[Pete[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>It will most likely turn out to be one of two things:
>>
>>1. Pilot error (he may try to blame the equipment for his own mistake,
>>that has happened before).
>>2. Some system failure, or combination of configurations that resulted
>>in an unexpected result.
>>
>>My money is on 1. given that the reports state that the glideslope was
>>unusual, and he may simply have gotten himself behind the power curve.
>
>
> Nah,the power curve not as big an issue these days. Spool up times are
> almost as fast as pistons and it probably had some sort of Alpha floor
> protection anyway. I'll know shortly because I'll be talking to a 777
> friend this afternoon.
>
>
>
> Bertie

I know nothing, but in view of the fact that some witnesses reported
that the plane had been banking, could the pilots have been lining up on
the wrong runway, realised their error, and got out of the safe
operating envelope as they tried to re-align?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Pete > wrote in news:On5kj.82378$wD5.17163
@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>It will most likely turn out to be one of two things:
>>>
>>>1. Pilot error (he may try to blame the equipment for his own
mistake,
>>>that has happened before).
>>>2. Some system failure, or combination of configurations that
resulted
>>>in an unexpected result.
>>>
>>>My money is on 1. given that the reports state that the glideslope
was
>>>unusual, and he may simply have gotten himself behind the power
curve.
>>
>>
>> Nah,the power curve not as big an issue these days. Spool up times
are
>> almost as fast as pistons and it probably had some sort of Alpha
floor
>> protection anyway. I'll know shortly because I'll be talking to a 777
>> friend this afternoon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I know nothing, but in view of the fact that some witnesses reported
> that the plane had been banking, could the pilots have been lining up
on
> the wrong runway, realised their error, and got out of the safe
> operating envelope as they tried to re-align?
>

Nah, not at LHR, anyway. It's early yet. there will be more info as the
weeks pass, but the final report will tell the tale.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 9:58*am, "Al G" > wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
> >> Boeing sent an AOG team
> > * * * * * * * * ^^^
> > What's an AOG team?
> > --
>
> * * "Aircraft On Ground"?
>
> Al *G

Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground
costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.

Dean

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message .. .
> Jay Maynard > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>> ^^^
>> What's an AOG team?
>
> Aircraft On Ground. That one fits the description if any one ever did.
>
>
> Bertie

Boy, that's for sure!

[Blueskies]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message ...
> On 2008-01-18, Blueskies > wrote:
>> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation?
>
> They've already ruled that out (or at least, they've ruled out fuel
> _exhaustion_).
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Didn't look like much if any fuel was spilled, even with the big hole in the wing. Didn't see any evidence of fire
either. Does BA use a fuel tank inerting system on these 777s?

I can't imagine what would cause loss of power to both engines at the same time...

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> It's early yet. there will be more info as the weeks pass, but the final
> report will tell the tale.

According to a BBC report I heard on the way home tonight (it's the BBC, so
it *must* be true!), the pilot (the Captain wasn't flying at the time
apparently) reported that the engines didn't respond to the demand or
thrust, so they're calling it 'engine failure'.

Like I say, that's the initial report (and via a news agency, so might need
to be taken with a pinch of salt).

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> It's early yet. there will be more info as the weeks pass, but the
>> final report will tell the tale.
>
> According to a BBC report I heard on the way home tonight (it's the
> BBC, so it *must* be true!), the pilot (the Captain wasn't flying at
> the time apparently) reported that the engines didn't respond to the
> demand or thrust, so they're calling it 'engine failure'.

Yeah, saw the press conference the skipper had. Very strange.
>
> Like I say, that's the initial report (and via a news agency, so might
> need to be taken with a pinch of salt).

Well, yeah. The BBC is better than most ( I'm sure Sky have blamed it
either on the guv'mint or a Paedophile ring by now)
I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who's a 777 Captain. he
has no idea either. There isn't anything that strange on the airplane
that might cause that to happen. One winding down isn't unheard of at
all, but both is very strange indeed.
I don't know if the engines have a FADEC or one of the slightly more
traditional fuel control units ( they have various names, like
Electronic control unit or electronic engne control) but I've never
heard of one of these shutting an engine down. The start switches are
the closest thing to what you guys would call a mixture, and unless
someone went insane and pulled them both it's unlikely they would have
actuated whihc is not very likely.
I have to talk to him again later. I'll pick his brains.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 6:00 pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
> > It's early yet. there will be more info as the weeks pass, but the final
> > report will tell the tale.
>
> According to a BBC report I heard on the way home tonight (it's the BBC, so
> it *must* be true!), the pilot (the Captain wasn't flying at the time
> apparently) reported that the engines didn't respond to the demand or
> thrust, so they're calling it 'engine failure'.
>
> Like I say, that's the initial report (and via a news agency, so might need
> to be taken with a pinch of salt).
>
> Andy

Sounds like some design flaw thats emerging after 10 years of service.
Can't wait for those 787s to age and require new glue to seal the
"composite" joints. Being London, can't rule out islamo-fascists.....

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:43:36 -0800 (PST), wrote:


>
>Sounds like some design flaw thats emerging after 10 years of service.

The accident airplane was only 6. <G>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
> On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>
> > "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
> > >> Boeing sent an AOG team
> > > ^^^
> > > What's an AOG team?
> > > --
>
> > "Aircraft On Ground"?
>
> > Al G
>
> Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
> given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
> shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground
> costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.
>
> Dean

It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
body all look shot.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 18, 6:00 pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article >,
>> Bertie the > wrote:
>>
>> > It's early yet. there will be more info as the weeks pass, but the
>> > final report will tell the tale.
>>
>> According to a BBC report I heard on the way home tonight (it's the
>> BBC, so it *must* be true!), the pilot (the Captain wasn't flying at
>> the time apparently) reported that the engines didn't respond to the
>> demand or thrust, so they're calling it 'engine failure'.
>>
>> Like I say, that's the initial report (and via a news agency, so
>> might need to be taken with a pinch of salt).
>>
>> Andy
>
> Sounds like some design flaw thats emerging after 10 years of service.
> Can't wait for those 787s to age and require new glue to seal the
> "composite" joints. Being London, can't rule out islamo-fascists.....
>

Yeah, must be one of those things...


Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
:

> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>>
>> > "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > > On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>> > >> Boeing sent an AOG team
>> > > ^^^
>> > > What's an AOG team?
>> > > --
>>
>> > "Aircraft On Ground"?
>>
>> > Al G
>>
>> Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
>> given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
>> shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground
>> costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.
>>
>> Dean
>
> It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
> body all look shot.
>

I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 6:25*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
> > What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritai...
>
> BBC America reported a second hand report that the pilot said that all
> power was loss.


Here's a link I found that may give some insight... From my side, I'm
just glad that everyone made it off the plane okay.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22365773.htm


Warmest Regards,

Jeff

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 4:49*pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
> >What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritai...
>
> passenger hack into the entertainment system?
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com

It's comments like these that make me mad. Many of you have little
knowledge of the expertise resident in Boeing. Try to find some of
their best, and brightest. Attempt to attend a trade show. If you
want to know how Boeing thinks, send in an application and see if they
would hire you ... If you're really that impressive I believe they
will.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
> :
>
>> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>>>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>>>>> ^^^
>>>>> What's an AOG team?
>>>>> --
>>>> "Aircraft On Ground"?
>>>> Al G
>>> Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
>>> given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
>>> shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground
>>> costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.
>>>
>>> Dean
>> It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
>> body all look shot.
>>
>
> I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.

FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:

Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.

"They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."

Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
aircraft on airbags, he says.

The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 17, 4:49*pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
>> Blueskies wrote:
>> >What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
>> >shear co
> uld have been an issue.
>>
>> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritai
>> >...
>>
>> passenger hack into the entertainment system?
>>
>> --
>> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com
>
> It's comments like these that make me mad. Many of you have little
> knowledge of the expertise resident in Boeing. Try to find some of
> their best, and brightest. Attempt to attend a trade show. If you
> want to know how Boeing thinks, send in an application and see if they
> would hire you ... If you're really that impressive I believe they
> will.
>

Some of the comments are harmless enough. others aren't. the thing is,
often speculative BS goes down as fact as the accident fades from view
after a few days. The "facts" remembered by even the pro community are
often blurred by these initial "monday morning piloting" sessions.
I don't mind people specualting, but I really object to them convicting
before the facts are in.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4791755f$0$27489
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
>>>> On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>>>>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>>>>>> ^^^
>>>>>> What's an AOG team?
>>>>>> --
>>>>> "Aircraft On Ground"?
>>>>> Al G
>>>> Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
>>>> given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
>>>> shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the
ground
>>>> costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>> It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
>>> body all look shot.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.
>
> FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:
>
> Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
> Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
> equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.
>
> "They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
> to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."
>
> Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
> fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
> aircraft on airbags, he says.
>
> The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
> fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.
>


Hmm. Wel, i'vw seen very badly damaged wings repaired. Not as bad as
that, mind you.
We have an airplane that got bent bad a couple of years ago. Took them
about five weeks to repair, bu tthe gear didn't go through the wing,
either.
Our one flies like a banana.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Hmm. Wel, i'vw seen very badly damaged wings repaired. Not as bad as
> that, mind you.
> We have an airplane that got bent bad a couple of years ago. Took them
> about five weeks to repair, bu tthe gear didn't go through the wing,
> either.
> Our one flies like a banana.

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47917ed9$0$27498
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Hmm. Wel, i'vw seen very badly damaged wings repaired. Not as bad as
>> that, mind you.
>> We have an airplane that got bent bad a couple of years ago. Took them
>> about five weeks to repair, bu tthe gear didn't go through the wing,
>> either.
>> Our one flies like a banana.
>
> That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement.
>

It isn't. But it does fly.
It's pretty easy to bend the things. in fact, we take off pressurised. just
a bit, not too much. .125 PSI as soon as we start engines, in fact. The
reason for this is to add structural rigidity to the fuse when it's
rattling down the runway.
To get an idea of how this works, take a 2 quart mostly empty coke bottle
and try and bend it with the top off. Now put the top on and shake it and
try again...

We can take off unpressurised ( for performance. having the engnes provide
some pressurisation uses power) but it's preferable to go lightly
prssurised.


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:17:17 -0500, "Bob Furtaw"
> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron A." >
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:53 PM
>Subject: Re: BA 777 crash at Heathrow
>
>> It almost sounds like reverse thrust came on at least one engine.
>>
>> Steeper than normal glideslope and offset from runway center line.
>>
>> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
>> news:7e5e63dd56a39@uwe...
>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>>What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear
>>>>could have been an issue.
>>>>
>>>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritainplane17.html
>>>
>>> passenger hack into the entertainment system?
>>> --
>>> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>>>
>
>I'm betting on wind shear or microburst...or he was told "land and hold
>short" Bob F.


Bob

If he was told to "land and hold" this could well set up pilot to
reduce A/S to try to comply and getting behind the power curve. With a
excessive rate of descent he could have cobbed the engines and there
was not enough power to overcome the behind the power curve sink at
the altitude he had and he hit short.

I'm sure all remember early airbus bird, that with the Company Pilot
and Airbus Wheels in it, made a slow low altitude pass over, I forget
just what they were having on the ground,and bird got behind the power
curve and sank into the trees and crashed. Red faces all over Airbus.

We really don't have enough data to make a good professional
evaluation of what happened so this just a sanerio of what could have
happened.. Anxious to see what black boxes show.

Pardon any misspelled words. Had out patient laser surgery and will
have a catheter and bag for next thee days :o(


Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:17:17 -0500, "Bob Furtaw"
> > wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Ron A." >
>>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
>>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:53 PM
>>Subject: Re: BA 777 crash at Heathrow
>>
>>> It almost sounds like reverse thrust came on at least one engine.
>>>
>>> Steeper than normal glideslope and offset from runway center line.
>>>
>>> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
>>> news:7e5e63dd56a39@uwe...
>>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>>>What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
>>>>>shear could have been an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
_apbrita
>>>>>inplane17.html
>>>>
>>>> passenger hack into the entertainment system?
>>>> --
>>>> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>>>>
>>
>>I'm betting on wind shear or microburst...or he was told "land and
>>hold short" Bob F.
>
>
> Bob
>
> If he was told to "land and hold" this could well set up pilot to
> reduce A/S to try to comply and getting behind the power curve.
No, he wouldn't have been told that for a several reasons.
One, th erunway has no intersecting runways (27L) tow, we just don't do
that anymore and three, the airplane would have bitched at him if he
did.

With a
> excessive rate of descent he could have cobbed the engines and there
> was not enough power to overcome the behind the power curve sink at
> the altitude he had and he hit short.

Nah, the modern engines have spool up times the same as pistons.

>
> I'm sure all remember early airbus bird, that with the Company Pilot
> and Airbus Wheels in it, made a slow low altitude pass over, I forget
> just what they were having on the ground,and bird got behind the power
> curve and sank into the trees and crashed. Red faces all over Airbus.


Well, they didn;t so much get behind the power curve as fool the
airplane into thinking it was going to land. When they decided to go
asround, the airplane decided to land. By the time they got it all
sorted out it was too late.

>
> We really don't have enough data to make a good professional
> evaluation of what happened so this just a sanerio of what could have
> happened.. Anxious to see what black boxes show.
>

Well, exaclty.

> Pardon any misspelled words. Had out patient laser surgery and will
> have a catheter and bag for next thee days :o(
>

Ouch!

On the plus side I have no excuse for my tpyos!

Bertie
>

[Big John[_2_]]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:59:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Ridge" > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all electronics
>> on final.
>
>Well, the news, ya know?
>
>If they lost both engines they would have lost a lot of electrics unless
>they had the APU runnning, which they would not have done most likely.
>
>
>Bertie


------------------------------------
Bertie

Whar rpm would the 777 engines windmill on final approach speed if you
know.

Also what RPM would the generators/alternators drop off line?

Do any of those brds have a RAT?

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:59:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ridge" > wrote in
:
>>
>>>
>>> I saw one report that said the pilot reported loosing all
electronics
>>> on final.
>>
>>Well, the news, ya know?
>>
>>If they lost both engines they would have lost a lot of electrics
unless
>>they had the APU runnning, which they would not have done most likely.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Bertie
>
> Whar rpm would the 777 engines windmill on final approach speed if you
> know.

Well, modern jets are all expressed in percentage ( TO RPM would be
about 100%) You'd be looking at around 60% N1 when you're dirty and
stabilised, and they would have been so at 600'.
>
> Also what RPM would the generators/alternators drop off line?

Pretty low. They have a constant speed drive to keep the freq steady and
that can cope down to about 45% N2 ( I think it's a two spool engine,
but it might be three) You lose a genny pretty quickly after an engine
failure. The APU door was open, so they may have been runing it for the
approach, or they may have tried to start it after the failure, but I
reckon that at 600 feet they had other things on their minds than a few
clocks going black.
>
> Do any of those brds have a RAT?

Yeah,It should be on the right wing root just behing the leading edge.
It'll run hydraulics and electrics. The airplane also has battery power
to provide both essential DC and AC for probably an hour and a half as
well. I was talking briefly to a friend who flies the 777.
They have a lot of additional generators dedicated to the computers. Of
course if they engines aren't running you won't have those either, but
something provided enough for the flight controls, it appears, or they
would have had no control. So something was making sparks.


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:02:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Jay Maynard > wrote in
:
>
>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>> ^^^
>> What's an AOG team?
>
>Aircraft On Ground. That one fits the description if any one ever did.
>
>
>Bertie
-------------------------------------------------

Bertie

Air Force used AOCP (Aircraft Out (of) Commission, Parts). Highest
priority.

When I was in PANAMA and we had a bird broken down country we would
take the part and hand to an Airline Pilot going that way (Braniff
many times) who carried in cockpit and handed to the aircrew of our
broken bird. These parts did not go through customs as bird would sit
there for weeks to get part released.

We also helped them the same way if we could. I remember loaning them
parts which they then paid us back from their US stock.. No money
changed hands as all a gentlemans agreement.

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:02:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Jay Maynard > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>>> ^^^
>>> What's an AOG team?
>>
>>Aircraft On Ground. That one fits the description if any one ever did.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Bertie
>
> Air Force used AOCP (Aircraft Out (of) Commission, Parts). Highest
> priority.
>
> When I was in PANAMA and we had a bird broken down country we would
> take the part and hand to an Airline Pilot going that way (Braniff
> many times) who carried in cockpit and handed to the aircrew of our
> broken bird. These parts did not go through customs as bird would sit
> there for weeks to get part released.
>
> We also helped them the same way if we could. I remember loaning them
> parts which they then paid us back from their US stock.. No money
> changed hands as all a gentlemans agreement.

I think this is ICAO. You often see AOG tagged on crates going cargo. As
another poster said, it's given high priority during shipment.


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

Bertie

------------------long clip-----------------------

I have time in C-130, C-121 and C-141 but nothing in the modern Jet
transport airliners. Weren't around when I retired.

Want to thank you for the Tech data you gave in basic post that I
clipped to save space.

I ask lots of questions and learn something new every day.

What bird do you normally fly or are you multiple currently qualified?

Big John

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Big John > wrote:

> Pardon any misspelled words. Had out patient laser surgery and will
> have a catheter and bag for next thee days :o(

Did it go well?

Hope you have a speedy recovery.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>D Ramapriya > wrote in news:35d049b5-4987-4d4a-b006-
> :
>
>> On Jan 18, 5:11 pm, Thomas Borchert >
>> wrote:
>>> D,
>>>
>>> > But this wasn't a normal landing.
>>> > The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
>>> > when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to greater
>>> > power.
>>>
>>> Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to ask
>>> yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take months,
>>> even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to be fact.
>>> The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will be our first
>>> clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah, humbug!
>>>
>>> >My Q is that once it was known that power was off,
>>>
>>> WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!
>>
>>
>> Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain himself.
>>
>
>
> Sky News is almost as full of **** as Fox.
>
> Well it would be since it's owned by the same person.
>
> Let me guess, they made it "Breaking news" for about 12 hours, right?
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
At least that long!

Yesterday morning, this discussion thread was already running; and, at
dinner time, at least one of the "all news" television channels was still
running the same crap over and over as a "developing story."

Peter

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Jan 18, 6:25 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> Blueskies wrote:
>>> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritai...
>> BBC America reported a second hand report that the pilot said that all
>> power was loss.
>
>
> Here's a link I found that may give some insight... From my side, I'm
> just glad that everyone made it off the plane okay.
> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22365773.htm

Yes, it is great that nobody was hurt. I see the engines for R-R so
that keeps the investigation close to home also. I have to admit that
I've become a more nervous airline passenger as modern airplanes have
become even more computer controlled. I never should have started out
with a CS degree! :-)

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> Bertie
>
> ------------------long clip-----------------------
>
> I have time in C-130, C-121 and C-141 but nothing in the modern Jet
> transport airliners. Weren't around when I retired.
>


Wouldn't be that much different from teh 141, I wouldn't think.

> Want to thank you for the Tech data you gave in basic post that I
> clipped to save space.
>
> I ask lots of questions and learn something new every day.
>
> What bird do you normally fly or are you multiple currently qualified?


Flying the 757 at the moment and current on widebody (non FBW) busses
though I haven't flown one in a couple of years now.
I know a few guys that flew the 141 out of McGuire.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>D Ramapriya > wrote in
>>news:35d049b5-4987-4d4a-b006-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 5:11 pm, Thomas Borchert >
>>> wrote:
>>>> D,
>>>>
>>>> > But this wasn't a normal landing.
>>>> > The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
>>>> > when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to
>>>> > greater power.
>>>>
>>>> Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to
>>>> ask yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take
>>>> months, even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to
>>>> be fact. The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will
>>>> be our first clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah,
>>>> humbug!
>>>>
>>>> >My Q is that once it was known that power was off,
>>>>
>>>> WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!
>>>
>>>
>>> Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain
>>> himself.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sky News is almost as full of **** as Fox.
>>
>> Well it would be since it's owned by the same person.
>>
>> Let me guess, they made it "Breaking news" for about 12 hours, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> At least that long!
>
> Yesterday morning, this discussion thread was already running; and, at
> dinner time, at least one of the "all news" television channels was
> still running the same crap over and over as a "developing story."


I get to see it all the time in Europe. Often it's the only english
language channel. That and CNN.If I'm stuck in my hotel room ( because I
have no money and am afraid of getting picked up for vagrancy) i get to
see hurricanes inch themselves across the carribean hourly...

Bertie


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 6:25 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>> Blueskies wrote:
>>>> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
>>>> shear could have been an issue.
>>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbrita
>>>> i...
>>> BBC America reported a second hand report that the pilot said that
>>> all power was loss.
>>
>>
>> Here's a link I found that may give some insight... From my side, I'm
>> just glad that everyone made it off the plane okay.
>> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22365773
>> .htm
>
> Yes, it is great that nobody was hurt. I see the engines for R-R so
> that keeps the investigation close to home also. I have to admit that
> I've become a more nervous airline passenger as modern airplanes have
> become even more computer controlled. I never should have started out
> with a CS degree! :-)
>

Well, RR engines are crap anyway. I've flown them on two types. They;re
needlessly complicated, labor intensive to maintain and they leak oil
everywhere,including into the cabin.
The failure rate is low, however.. I haven't yet flown anything that
doesn't have manual reversion on the throttles, but most airplanes built in
the last ten years or so are straight FADEC.

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>D Ramapriya > wrote in
>>>news:35d049b5-4987-4d4a-b006-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 5:11 pm, Thomas Borchert >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> D,
>>>>>
>>>>> > But this wasn't a normal landing.
>>>>> > The 777 was reportedly circa 500 ft
>>>>> > when the pilot noticed that the engine wasn't responding to
>>>>> > greater power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported by whom? How on earth would you know? Have you thought to
>>>>> ask yourself why professional accident investigations tend to take
>>>>> months, even years? We know exactly nothing about what you claim to
>>>>> be fact. The AIB will issue an inital report in 48 hours. That will
>>>>> be our first clue. An "airport worker talked to the pilot..."? Bah,
>>>>> humbug!
>>>>>
>>>>> >My Q is that once it was known that power was off,
>>>>>
>>>>> WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sky News reported that as information it had from the Captain
>>>> himself.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sky News is almost as full of **** as Fox.
>>>
>>> Well it would be since it's owned by the same person.
>>>
>>> Let me guess, they made it "Breaking news" for about 12 hours, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> At least that long!
>>
>> Yesterday morning, this discussion thread was already running; and, at
>> dinner time, at least one of the "all news" television channels was
>> still running the same crap over and over as a "developing story."
>
>
> I get to see it all the time in Europe. Often it's the only english
> language channel. That and CNN.If I'm stuck in my hotel room ( because I
> have no money and am afraid of getting picked up for vagrancy) i get to
> see hurricanes inch themselves across the carribean hourly...
>
> Bertie
>
>
Fortunately for me, I rarely have to watch TV, except for a little ESPN--and
that mostly while I am on a treadmill. However, yesterday I took the day to
drive to the LSA Expo at Sebring--which is less than 150 miles away. On the
way back, I decided that it was time to have a dinner of fried catfish
(about once every 5 to 10 years is about right and it had been about that
long) and the TV was playing in the restaurant. BTW, the catfish was very
good and was the best that I can recall.

For the most part, the LSAs are not quite ready for me, since I am 6'1" and
don't like to be squished or to have my view blocked. But, that's OK since
my budget isn't ready for them and I don't have any medical issues.
However, the intesting thing the I learned was that, at least in the case of
low wing aircraft, the ones that make the most use of carbon fiber have
about a 100 pound usefull load advantage over the ones that don't. In the
case of the LSAs, that works out to a 20 to 25% advantage in usefull load
and up to 40% in pay load--and those numbers may carry over to a lot of
standard category aircraft as well. That's huge!

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> BTW, the catfish was very good and was the best that I
> can recall.

Never had it, beleive it or not! you have me wanting to try, though.

>
> For the most part, the LSAs are not quite ready for me, since I am
> 6'1" and don't like to be squished or to have my view blocked. But,
> that's OK since my budget isn't ready for them and I don't have any
> medical issues. However, the intesting thing the I learned was that,
> at least in the case of low wing aircraft, the ones that make the most
> use of carbon fiber have about a 100 pound usefull load advantage over
> the ones that don't. In the case of the LSAs, that works out to a 20
> to 25% advantage in usefull load and up to 40% in pay load--and those
> numbers may carry over to a lot of standard category aircraft as well.
> That's huge!
>

OK, but of a non sequitor, but yeah, Good material.
Wait til nanotubes hit the scene!


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Big,

> I'm sure all remember early airbus bird, that with the Company Pilot
> and Airbus Wheels in it, made a slow low altitude pass over, I forget
> just what they were having on the ground,and bird got behind the power
> curve and sank into the trees and crashed. Red faces all over Airbus.
>

I'm sure most remember that was not at all what happened. Red faces all
over Air France when their hot shot demo pilot had a "Hey, watch this"
moment.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Blueskies,

> Didn't look like much if any fuel was spilled,
>

Well, the AIB reports a lot of fuel being spilled.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Big,
>
>> I'm sure all remember early airbus bird, that with the Company Pilot
>> and Airbus Wheels in it, made a slow low altitude pass over, I forget
>> just what they were having on the ground,and bird got behind the power
>> curve and sank into the trees and crashed. Red faces all over Airbus.
>>
>
> I'm sure most remember that was not at all what happened. Red faces all
> over Air France when their hot shot demo pilot had a "Hey, watch this"
> moment.
>

And Airbus..

Still a lot of unanswered questions about that accident.


Bertie

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 19, 7:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Well, RR engines are crap anyway. I've flown them on two types. They;re
> needlessly complicated, labor intensive to maintain and they leak oil
> everywhere,including into the cabin.


Bertie, by 'cabin', do you mean the portion of the turbine that houses
the vanes?

Ramapriya

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 19, 9:42 am, Big John > wrote:
>
> I'm sure all remember early airbus bird, that with the Company Pilot
> and Airbus Wheels in it, made a slow low altitude pass over, I forget
> just what they were having on the ground,and bird got behind the power
> curve and sank into the trees and crashed. Red faces all over Airbus.


And the pilot Michel Asseline is still in jail, I hear :(

Ramapriya

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:2e068488-4d2c-4880-9f7e-
:

> On Jan 19, 7:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Well, RR engines are crap anyway. I've flown them on two types. They;re
>> needlessly complicated, labor intensive to maintain and they leak oil
>> everywhere,including into the cabin.
>
>
> Bertie, by 'cabin', do you mean the portion of the turbine that houses
> the vanes?
>

No, by "Cabin" I mean the portion of the airplane that the people sit in.

The pressurisation for almost all jets comes form the turbine section.
Several engines, most notoriously, RB211s, leak engine oil into the turbine
section where; it's heated, pyrolised , and then injected in a fine mist
into the cabin where it causes nerve damage to the occupants.
All jet engines do this to some degree or other. RR engines, particularly
the RB211 and particularly the early engines, inject lots and lots of this
into the cabin.
Nice.

www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/tox0639.pdf
www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-BPEE_07-05.pdf
casa.gov.au/fsa/2002/jul/44-45.pdf
www.yarchive.net/air/airliners/exhaust_fumes.html

It's a huge problem worldwide. It's barely discussed in the US....
The ramifications for the industry if this is ever looked square in the eye
are mindblowing.
Boeing have gone with a seperate blower for the 787 because of this
problem.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:aa7cbd5b-a2c9-4ef1-9a81-
:

> On Jan 19, 9:42 am, Big John > wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure all remember early airbus bird, that with the Company Pilot
>> and Airbus Wheels in it, made a slow low altitude pass over, I forget
>> just what they were having on the ground,and bird got behind the power
>> curve and sank into the trees and crashed. Red faces all over Airbus.
>
>
> And the pilot Michel Asseline is still in jail, I hear :(
>

I don;t htink he did much, if any time, in fact..


Bertie

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 19, 9:26 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> No, by "Cabin" I mean the portion of the airplane that the people sit in.
>
> The pressurisation for almost all jets comes form the turbine section.
> Several engines, most notoriously, RB211s, leak engine oil into the turbine
> section where; it's heated, pyrolised , and then injected in a fine mist
> into the cabin where it causes nerve damage to the occupants.
> All jet engines do this to some degree or other. RR engines, particularly
> the RB211 and particularly the early engines, inject lots and lots of this
> into the cabin.
> Nice.


I don't believe this, in the oh-so-particular aviation industry! Why
hasn't (a) anyone made a noise about it and (b) this affected people
adversely yet?


> It's a huge problem worldwide. It's barely discussed in the US....
> The ramifications for the industry if this is ever looked square in the eye
> are mindblowing.
> Boeing have gone with a seperate blower for the 787 because of this
> problem.


But if it was really such a problem, and considering that jets have
been around for > 40 years now, there should've been a name against
some sort of sickness that this causes.

Quite disturbing, truth to tell. Thanks for the erudition :)

Ramapriya

[RST Engineering]

If I'm not mistaken, and it has been forty some years since I've bent a
wrench on the torch so I may well be, the pressurization comes from the
compressor section and not the turbine section. In particular, my manual
for the JT8D says it comes from the 13th stage compressor. It would be WAY
the hell too hot to come from the turbine section. It is hot enough coming
off the compressor to require an intercooler before using it for
pressurization.

Jim



> The pressurisation for almost all jets comes form the turbine section.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in
:

> On Jan 19, 9:26 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> No, by "Cabin" I mean the portion of the airplane that the people sit
>> in.
>>
>> The pressurisation for almost all jets comes form the turbine
>> section. Several engines, most notoriously, RB211s, leak engine oil
>> into the turbine section where; it's heated, pyrolised , and then
>> injected in a fine mist into the cabin where it causes nerve damage
>> to the occupants. All jet engines do this to some degree or other. RR
>> engines, particularly the RB211 and particularly the early engines,
>> inject lots and lots of this into the cabin.
>> Nice.
>
>
> I don't believe this, in the oh-so-particular aviation industry! Why
> hasn't (a) anyone made a noise about it and (b) this affected people
> adversely yet?
>

Well, there is some noise being made about it, but not enough.
Governments could fall over theis ( particularly the British one) and it
would devastate the aivaition industry.
It has affected people. Lots of them. Mostly pilots. Lots and lots have
been grounded by exposure to engine oil fumes.
>
>> It's a huge problem worldwide. It's barely discussed in the US....
>> The ramifications for the industry if this is ever looked square in
>> the eye are mindblowing.
>> Boeing have gone with a seperate blower for the 787 because of this
>> problem.
>
>
> But if it was really such a problem, and considering that jets have
> been around for > 40 years now, there should've been a name against
> some sort of sickness that this causes.
>
> Quite disturbing, truth to tell. Thanks for the erudition :)

More for me than you, man!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> If I'm not mistaken, and it has been forty some years since I've bent
> a wrench on the torch so I may well be, the pressurization comes from
> the compressor section and not the turbine section. In particular, my
> manual for the JT8D says it comes from the 13th stage compressor. It
> would be WAY the hell too hot to come from the turbine section. It is
> hot enough coming off the compressor to require an intercooler before
> using it for pressurization.
>

Yeah, sorry, slip of the tongue.Yes, the compresser wsection. Air coming
from the turbine would be marginally worse!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

James Robinson > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>>
>>> Big John > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure all remember early airbus bird, that with the Company
>>>> Pilot and Airbus Wheels in it, made a slow low altitude pass over,
>>>> I forget just what they were having on the ground,and bird got
>>>> behind the power curve and sank into the trees and crashed. Red
>>>> faces all over Airbus.
>>>
>>>
>>> And the pilot Michel Asseline is still in jail, I hear :(
>>>
>>
>> I don;t htink he did much, if any time, in fact..
>
> He was originally sentenced to 6 months in jail, and 12 months
> probation. He appealed, and the sentence was increased to 10 months
> in jail, and 10 months on probation.
>
> He eventually served the full ten months in jail, and has been
> released.
>

Yeah, sounds about right.

i think he was mae a scapegoat, myself.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> I'm sure most remember that was not at all what happened. Red faces all
> over Air France when their hot shot demo pilot had a "Hey, watch this"
> moment.

Especially when his stunt exposed serious problems with the aircraft
fly-by-wire software ... serious enough to require doctoring the black box so
that nobody would find out about them. That was when I wrote Airbus off
permanently. Safety obviously wasn't a priority.

Stranger still was declaring the pilot mentally unbalanced after the incident.
He had been one of their best pilots. Either they were lying about his mental
state, or they were admitting that their best pilots are mentally unbalanced;
neither conclusion is particularly reassuring.

[Mxsmanic]

D Ramapriya writes:

> And the pilot Michel Asseline is still in jail, I hear :(

He was sentenced to six months.

[Mxsmanic]

RST Engineering writes:

> If I'm not mistaken, and it has been forty some years since I've bent a
> wrench on the torch so I may well be, the pressurization comes from the
> compressor section and not the turbine section.

All of those rotating things with blades are turbines.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RST Engineering writes:
>
>> If I'm not mistaken, and it has been forty some years since I've bent a
>> wrench on the torch so I may well be, the pressurization comes from the
>> compressor section and not the turbine section.
>
> All of those rotating things with blades are turbines.
>

So your head is a turbine?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> I'm sure most remember that was not at all what happened. Red faces
>> all over Air France when their hot shot demo pilot had a "Hey, watch
>> this" moment.
>
> Especially when his stunt exposed serious problems with the aircraft
> fly-by-wire software ..

No, it didn't, you fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> D Ramapriya writes:
>
>> And the pilot Michel Asseline is still in jail, I hear :(
>
> He was sentenced to six months.
>

Woulda suited you down to the ground! You wouldn't have to go out.....


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:31:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie
>>
>> ------------------long clip-----------------------
>>
>> I have time in C-130, C-121 and C-141 but nothing in the modern Jet
>> transport airliners. Weren't around when I retired.
>>
>
>
>Wouldn't be that much different from teh 141, I wouldn't think.
>
>> Want to thank you for the Tech data you gave in basic post that I
>> clipped to save space.
>>
>> I ask lots of questions and learn something new every day.
>>
>> What bird do you normally fly or are you multiple currently qualified?
>
>
>Flying the 757 at the moment and current on widebody (non FBW) busses
>though I haven't flown one in a couple of years now.
>I know a few guys that flew the 141 out of McGuire.
>
>
>Bertie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bertie

On 141 the first takeoff a fire warning light came on. I said should
we do anything about that light (IE shut engine down) and IP so no
it comes one very take off and goes out when we cut power back and
that's what it did. Was fixed when bird got back home
..
Now that I've some one to ask questions to.

In my many years in the Air Defense Command we would normally make one
or more, depending on fuel, GCA's on most of our landings back at home
plate, even in clear Wx. This kept us and GCA highly proficient for
use in bad WX. It allowed me to make ONE zero zero landing out of a
GCA approach :o(

We also had a ILS receiver in birds and shot enough ILS's to maintain
minimum proficiency.

At most of the fields where we ran practice ILS's I found that the
signal went ape about minims and needles would bounce off of both
stops.

Has this been corrected or do you get route training an know which
ILS'S do this so you can hold what you got and fly through the bad
signal area?

Got some pictures from a VN friend who now works for FAA of a 380 that
ran off taxi way some place. Do you know where and how did they
recover. Didn't look like any damage as was just taxiing. If you want
the pictures, give me a e-mail address I can send to.

Stay out of the accident column :o)

Big John

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:05:14 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Big John > wrote:
>
>> Pardon any misspelled words. Had out patient laser surgery and will
>> have a catheter and bag for next thee days :o(
>
>Did it go well?
>
>Hope you have a speedy recovery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Recovery seems to be on sched. Just hoping it will return me to like
I was as a 18 year old stud and eliminate the old man's problem :o)

Tnx for asking.

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:31:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Big John > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> ------------------long clip-----------------------
>>>
>>> I have time in C-130, C-121 and C-141 but nothing in the modern Jet
>>> transport airliners. Weren't around when I retired.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Wouldn't be that much different from teh 141, I wouldn't think.
>>
>>> Want to thank you for the Tech data you gave in basic post that I
>>> clipped to save space.
>>>
>>> I ask lots of questions and learn something new every day.
>>>
>>> What bird do you normally fly or are you multiple currently
>>> qualified?
>>
>>
>>Flying the 757 at the moment and current on widebody (non FBW) busses
>>though I haven't flown one in a couple of years now.
>>I know a few guys that flew the 141 out of McGuire.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -----------------
>
> Bertie
>
> On 141 the first takeoff a fire warning light came on. I said should
> we do anything about that light (IE shut engine down) and IP so no
> it comes one very take off and goes out when we cut power back and
> that's what it did. Was fixed when bird got back home


Ha ha! those were he days!
I'd be strung up for that now!

> .
> Now that I've some one to ask questions to.
>
> In my many years in the Air Defense Command we would normally make one
> or more, depending on fuel, GCA's on most of our landings back at home
> plate, even in clear Wx. This kept us and GCA highly proficient for
> use in bad WX. It allowed me to make ONE zero zero landing out of a
> GCA approach :o(
>
> We also had a ILS receiver in birds and shot enough ILS's to maintain
> minimum proficiency.
>
> At most of the fields where we ran practice ILS's I found that the
> signal went ape about minims and needles would bounce off of both
> stops.
>
> Has this been corrected or do you get route training an know which
> ILS'S do this so you can hold what you got and fly through the bad
> signal area?
>
> Got some pictures from a VN friend who now works for FAA of a 380 that
> ran off taxi way some place. Do you know where and how did they
> recover. Didn't look like any damage as was just taxiing. If you want
> the pictures, give me a e-mail address I can send to.
>
> Stay out of the accident column :o)


I'll try!

The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do Cat3
autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost
perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS. Used
to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use auto
aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing.
Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway
excursion, but I can't remember where.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 12:41 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> RST Engineering writes:
> > If I'm not mistaken, and it has been forty some years since I've bent a
> > wrench on the torch so I may well be, the pressurization comes from the
> > compressor section and not the turbine section.
>
> All of those rotating things with blades are turbines.

Only to those who have no idea of the proper terminology.
The turbine is the section that extracts power from the hot, high-
velocity gases and uses it to drive the compressor. It also drives the
fan in a turbofan, or the propeller in a turboprop, or the output
shaft in a turboshaft engine (APUs, helicopters, and some marine
applications.Probably lots more, especially military stuff.) Anything
else rotating with blades is part of the compressor section, or the
fan.
See: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbdraw.html

Dan

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 19, 11:37 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
> > I'm sure most remember that was not at all what happened. Red faces all
> > over Air France when their hot shot demo pilot had a "Hey, watch this"
> > moment.
>
> Especially when his stunt exposed serious problems with the aircraft
> fly-by-wire software ... serious enough to require doctoring the black box so
> that nobody would find out about them. That was when I wrote Airbus off
> permanently. Safety obviously wasn't a priority.


That's a bit too unreasonable. Don't think it was a software problem,
btw, but of the engines of that time requiring a certain spool-up
time. That's how an A320 came down rather close to my backyard 18
years ago in Bangalore.

Ramapriya

[Big John[_2_]]

----------------------------clip-------------------------------
>
>The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do Cat3
>autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost
>perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS. Used
>to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use auto
>aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing.
>Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway
>excursion, but I can't remember where.


Bertie

Thanks for the info. I'll rest a little easier when in back end and
approach is to minimums in heavy rain at night.

380 may not have been current? You notice that things seem to get
recycled at later dates when somone just receives it and forwards with
no date of event.

Big John.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

>
>
>
> ----------------------------clip-------------------------------
>>
>>The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do
Cat3
>>autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost
>>perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS. Used
>>to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use auto
>>aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing.
>>Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway
>>excursion, but I can't remember where.
>
>
> Bertie
>
> Thanks for the info. I'll rest a little easier when in back end and
> approach is to minimums in heavy rain at night.

Oh yeah, it works very well. We can land in absolutely zero/zero
perfectly safely, though we actully need a little bit of vis to be legal
just so we can find outr way of the runway! But in many places we land
with no DH at all, and no requirement to see anything before touchdown,
though we always see something. We can land in places we can't take off
from! On touchdown, the airplane will continue down the runway
absolutely on the center line. The autobrakes will stop us the
speedbrakes auto-deploy and the only thing we do manually is select
reverse if we want it.


>
> 380 may not have been current? You notice that things seem to get
> recycled at later dates when somone just receives it and forwards with
> no date of event.


Yeah, I can't remember, exactly, but i think it was some time ago.

Dunno.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in
:

> On Jan 19, 11:37 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>> > I'm sure most remember that was not at all what happened. Red faces
>> > all over Air France when their hot shot demo pilot had a "Hey,
>> > watch this" moment.
>>
>> Especially when his stunt exposed serious problems with the aircraft
>> fly-by-wire software ... serious enough to require doctoring the
>> black box so that nobody would find out about them. That was when I
>> wrote Airbus off permanently. Safety obviously wasn't a priority.
>
>
> That's a bit too unreasonable. Don't think it was a software problem,
> btw, but of the engines of that time requiring a certain spool-up
> time. That's how an A320 came down rather close to my backyard 18
> years ago in Bangalore.

No, actually, that had nothing to do with spool up times. I think that was
the first one that they used the phrase "Aircraft-crew interface" The
problem was the airplane got wel ahead of the crew, they were unaware of
what modes the various auto functions were in and just didn't realise what
was going on in general. The spool up times would have been almost
insignificant in this case, and in any case, spool up times are very quick
on modern engines, almost as fast as pistons and in some cases.
Basically those guys got a high rate of descnet going with no power on and
descended far too rapidly and didnt so anything about it until it was too
late. This got to be a feature of several early 'Bus accidents and the
aricraft-crew interface accident list grew fairly quickly in those early
FBW days.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Big > wrote:

> Got some pictures from a VN friend who now works for FAA of a 380 that
> ran off taxi way some place. Do you know where and how did they
> recover. Didn't look like any damage as was just taxiing. If you want
> the pictures, give me a e-mail address I can send to.

Wasn't that the one that was being towed, and there was a problem with the
tug?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7182496.stm

Andy

[Mxsmanic]

D Ramapriya writes:

> That's a bit too unreasonable. Don't think it was a software problem,
> btw, but of the engines of that time requiring a certain spool-up
> time.

Why were the flight recorders tampered with? What was being hidden?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> D Ramapriya writes:
>
>> That's a bit too unreasonable. Don't think it was a software problem,
>> btw, but of the engines of that time requiring a certain spool-up
>> time.
>
> Why were the flight recorders tampered with? What was being hidden?
>

Probably your ****ups, wannabe boi


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:34:05 GMT, Andy Hawkins >
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>In article >,
> Big > wrote:
>
>> Got some pictures from a VN friend who now works for FAA of a 380 that
>> ran off taxi way some place. Do you know where and how did they
>> recover. Didn't look like any damage as was just taxiing. If you want
>> the pictures, give me a e-mail address I can send to.
>
>Wasn't that the one that was being towed, and there was a problem with the
>tug?
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7182496.stm
>
>Andy


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andy

Tnx for site with info. See that it is a current event and not
history.

Wonder why they tow bird out to R/W instead of taxi unless to save avn
fuel????

Big John

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:22:34 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------clip-------------------------------
>>>
>>>The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do
>Cat3
>>>autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost
>>>perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS. Used
>>>to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use auto
>>>aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing.
>>>Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway
>>>excursion, but I can't remember where.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> Thanks for the info. I'll rest a little easier when in back end and
>> approach is to minimums in heavy rain at night.
>
>Oh yeah, it works very well. We can land in absolutely zero/zero
>perfectly safely, though we actully need a little bit of vis to be legal
>just so we can find outr way of the runway! But in many places we land
>with no DH at all, and no requirement to see anything before touchdown,
>though we always see something. We can land in places we can't take off
>from! On touchdown, the airplane will continue down the runway
>absolutely on the center line. The autobrakes will stop us the
>speedbrakes auto-deploy and the only thing we do manually is select
>reverse if we want it.
>
>
>>
>> 380 may not have been current? You notice that things seem to get
>> recycled at later dates when somone just receives it and forwards with
>> no date of event.
>
>
>Yeah, I can't remember, exactly, but i think it was some time ago.
>
>Dunno.
>
>Bertie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bertie

I can see now why the Airlines are talking about taking Private Pilots
who have just upgraded to Commercial and putting in right seat to fill
coming Pilot shortage due to lack of retired Mil Pilots.

Knew you all had zero zero but haden't read that was authorized,
except only at a few airports with special birds and trained aircrews.
Big brother all the way.

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:22:34 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Big John > wrote in
:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------clip-------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do
>>Cat3
>>>>autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost
>>>>perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS.
>>>>Used to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use
>>>>auto aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing.
>>>>Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway
>>>>excursion, but I can't remember where.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info. I'll rest a little easier when in back end and
>>> approach is to minimums in heavy rain at night.
>>
>>Oh yeah, it works very well. We can land in absolutely zero/zero
>>perfectly safely, though we actully need a little bit of vis to be
>>legal just so we can find outr way of the runway! But in many places
>>we land with no DH at all, and no requirement to see anything before
>>touchdown, though we always see something. We can land in places we
>>can't take off from! On touchdown, the airplane will continue down the
>>runway absolutely on the center line. The autobrakes will stop us the
>>speedbrakes auto-deploy and the only thing we do manually is select
>>reverse if we want it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 380 may not have been current? You notice that things seem to get
>>> recycled at later dates when somone just receives it and forwards
>>> with no date of event.
>>
>>
>>Yeah, I can't remember, exactly, but i think it was some time ago.
>>
>>Dunno.
>>
>>Bertie
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -----------------------------
>
>
> Bertie
>
> I can see now why the Airlines are talking about taking Private Pilots
> who have just upgraded to Commercial and putting in right seat to fill
> coming Pilot shortage due to lack of retired Mil Pilots.
>
> Knew you all had zero zero but haden't read that was authorized,
> except only at a few airports with special birds and trained aircrews.
> Big brother all the way.
>

That's right. The aircraft has to be certified, and the runway and the
crew. There's not a lot to it with us. the autopilot does it and we
monitor. There are a number of gates where we check to make sure it's
all working and the right lights come on and what not, but it's pretty
much just switch the stuff on and guide it onto the ILS. Almost every
large airliner still flying can do it nowadays.
We're not licenced for 0/0. nobody is because the airport would be
logjammed with people taxiing into each other! We can land with 200' vis
which ain't much!



Bertie

[Gilbert Smith]

Rich Ahrens > wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
>>>> On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>>>>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>>>>>> ^^^
>>>>>> What's an AOG team?
>>>>>> --
>>>>> "Aircraft On Ground"?
>>>>> Al G
>>>> Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
>>>> given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
>>>> shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the ground
>>>> costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>> It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
>>> body all look shot.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.
>
>FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:
>
>Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
>Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
>equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.
>
>"They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
>to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."
>
>Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
>fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
>aircraft on airbags, he says.
>
>The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
>fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.

Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the
facts.
Gilbert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Gilbert Smith > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
>>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>>>>>>> ^^^
>>>>>>> What's an AOG team?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "Aircraft On Ground"?
>>>>>> Al G
>>>>> Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
>>>>> given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
>>>>> shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the
ground
>>>>> costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dean
>>>> It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
>>>> body all look shot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.
>>
>>FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:
>>
>>Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
>>Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
>>equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.
>>
>>"They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
>>to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."
>>
>>Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
>>fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
>>aircraft on airbags, he says.
>>
>>The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
>>fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.
>
> Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the
> facts.


What facts?


Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:50:44 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:22:34 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Big John > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------clip-------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>The radio gear has improived quite a lot since then. We regulaly do
>>>Cat3
>>>>>autolandings and damned if the airplane doesn't do them almost
>>>>>perfectly. I mean the needles don't budge on the way down an ILS.
>>>>>Used to be I could go donw an ILS almost as good myself, but we use
>>>>>auto aproach so much nowadays that edge is disappearing.
>>>>>Don;t know about the 380. I vaguely remember one having a runway
>>>>>excursion, but I can't remember where.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the info. I'll rest a little easier when in back end and
>>>> approach is to minimums in heavy rain at night.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah, it works very well. We can land in absolutely zero/zero
>>>perfectly safely, though we actully need a little bit of vis to be
>>>legal just so we can find outr way of the runway! But in many places
>>>we land with no DH at all, and no requirement to see anything before
>>>touchdown, though we always see something. We can land in places we
>>>can't take off from! On touchdown, the airplane will continue down the
>>>runway absolutely on the center line. The autobrakes will stop us the
>>>speedbrakes auto-deploy and the only thing we do manually is select
>>>reverse if we want it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 380 may not have been current? You notice that things seem to get
>>>> recycled at later dates when somone just receives it and forwards
>>>> with no date of event.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, I can't remember, exactly, but i think it was some time ago.
>>>
>>>Dunno.
>>>
>>>Bertie
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>> -----------------------------
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> I can see now why the Airlines are talking about taking Private Pilots
>> who have just upgraded to Commercial and putting in right seat to fill
>> coming Pilot shortage due to lack of retired Mil Pilots.
>>
>> Knew you all had zero zero but haden't read that was authorized,
>> except only at a few airports with special birds and trained aircrews.
>> Big brother all the way.
>>
>
>That's right. The aircraft has to be certified, and the runway and the
>crew. There's not a lot to it with us. the autopilot does it and we
>monitor. There are a number of gates where we check to make sure it's
>all working and the right lights come on and what not, but it's pretty
>much just switch the stuff on and guide it onto the ILS. Almost every
>large airliner still flying can do it nowadays.
>We're not licenced for 0/0. nobody is because the airport would be
>logjammed with people taxiing into each other! We can land with 200' vis
>which ain't much!
>
>
>
>Bertie
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bertie

This thread is getting long so will be my last to it. Tnx for all the
current info.

Our mins were 200/1 and I landed with that many times.

Became so routine never gave it a second thought. Many landing were in
North Bay San Fran (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog. Thick and heavy
and no R/W until at mins (or below). Then landing lights to see stripe
to clear R/W and taxi back to ramp.

Have a good holiday tomorrow.

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Big John > wrote in
:
>
> This thread is getting long so will be my last to it. Tnx for all the
> current info.
>
> Our mins were 200/1 and I landed with that many times.

Yes, well for me too, and not that long ago! Still is if there;s no Cat 3
or Cat 2]
>
> Became so routine never gave it a second thought. Many landing were in
> North Bay San Fran (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog. Thick and heavy
> and no R/W until at mins (or below). Then landing lights to see stripe
> to clear R/W and taxi back to ramp.
>
> Have a good holiday tomorrow.

Thanks, but work for me tomorrow!

See ya, and look after your , you know!

Bertie

[Gilbert Smith]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Gilbert Smith > wrote in
:
>
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>>
>>>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> wrote in news:eaa459d0-359d-488c-831e-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 11:42 am, wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 18, 9:58 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 2008-01-18, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Boeing sent an AOG team
>>>>>>>> ^^^
>>>>>>>> What's an AOG team?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> "Aircraft On Ground"?
>>>>>>> Al G
>>>>>> Yes, AOG is airplane on ground. Replacement parts marked AOG are
>>>>>> given the highest priority of any cargo by airlines when they are
>>>>>> shipped, even higher than medical. Keeping an airplane on the
>ground
>>>>>> costs $$$, and everyone in the business knows that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dean
>>>>> It looks like that airframe is destined for the scrap heap, wings,
>>>>> body all look shot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd say it will be repeaired. It's amazing what they fix.
>>>
>>>FWIW, this comes from a BBC report:
>>>
>>>Judging by the television pictures, it looks like a wreck, says Mark
>>>Knight of AMS Systems Engineering, which supplies aircraft recovery
>>>equipment to Heathrow Airport and British Airways.
>>>
>>>"They will remove it as quickly as possible without much consideration
>>>to secondary damage. I don't think it will be put back into service."
>>>
>>>Had the wings been unscathed and there was a chance the aircraft could
>>>fly again, a delicate recovery operation would begin, by lifting the
>>>aircraft on airbags, he says.
>>>
>>>The more likely scenario, he thinks, is the wings will be removed, the
>>>fuselage lifted by crane on to a truck and taken away to be stripped.
>>
>> Ha, ha, so much he knew ! Virtually all of it contradicted by the
>> facts.
>
>
>What facts?
>
>
>Bertie

They craned it onto some multi-wheeled platforms, complete with wings,
and trundled it off to the hangars.

Gilbert.

[Dallas]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:14:08 -0600, Big John wrote:

> Many landing were in North Bay San Fran
> (Hamilton Field) with the bay fog.

Ha... I was born in the Hamilton Field hospital.

--
Dallas

[Flydive]

Latest update:


"Since the issue of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) 1st
Preliminary Report on Friday 18 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. (AAIB)"

[Tina]

No independent verification of this, but interesting




BOEING 777 Crash



Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the

approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF transmitter
to block out

any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
mile

range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls)
to sense a

"overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation
for

the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.



We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be

potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad
guys

could use to bring down an airliner.






On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind shear could have been an issue.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291_apbritai...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> No independent verification of this, but interesting
>
>
>
>
> BOEING 777 Crash
>
>
>
> Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the
>
> approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF transmitter
> to block out
>
> any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
> mile
>
> range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls)
> to sense a
>
> "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation
> for
>
> the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>
>
>
> We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
>
> potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad
> guys
>
> could use to bring down an airliner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
>> shear cou
> ld have been an issue.
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
_apbritai.
>> ..
>
>

This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
happened.
It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a hile
with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down in a
similar fashion in LA, I think it was.


Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message .. .
> Tina > wrote in
> :
>
>
> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
> happened.
> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a hile
> with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down in a
> similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Maybe Bush's motorcade was passing underneath?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
et:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Tina > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
>> happened.
>> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a
>> hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down
>> in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Maybe Bush's motorcade was passing underneath?
>


Mebbe!

bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 3:20*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No independent verification of this, but interesting
>
> > BOEING 777 Crash
>
> > Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the
>
> > approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF transmitter
> > to block out
>
> > any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
> > mile
>
> > range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine controls)
> > to sense a
>
> > "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust situation
> > for
>
> > the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>
> > We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
>
> > potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the bad
> > guys
>
> > could use to bring down an airliner.
>
> > On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> >> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
> >> shear cou
> > ld have been an issue.
>
> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
> _apbritai.
> >> ..
>
> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
> happened.
> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a hile
> with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down in a
> similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was thinking that slush in the tanks may have been behind the power
loss. If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and changed pitch
attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked into the fuel
lines. Only a small amount of water slush would have been required to
cause a problem. Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may even
have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but too late
to restore power to the engines. Just a thought...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 3:20*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Tina > wrote
>> innews:a1277cd8-28db-416c-9034-1bf02c02
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > No independent verification of this, but interesting
>>
>> > BOEING 777 Crash
>>
>> > Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the
>>
>> > approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF
>> > transmitter to block out
>>
>> > any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
>> > mile
>>
>> > range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine
>> > controls) to sense a
>>
>> > "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust
>> > situation for
>>
>> > the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>>
>> > We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
>>
>> > potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the
>> > bad guys
>>
>> > could use to bring down an airliner.
>>
>> > On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" >
>> > wrote:
>
>> >> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
>> >> shear cou
>> > ld have been an issue.
>>
>> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
>> _apbritai.
>> >> ..
>>
>> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
>> happened.
>> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a
>> hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down
>> in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I was thinking that slush in the tanks may have been behind the power
> loss. If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and changed pitch
> attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked into the fuel
> lines. Only a small amount of water slush would have been required to
> cause a problem. Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may even
> have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but too late
> to restore power to the engines. Just a thought...
>

Could be, but the fuel itself can freeze. it was a polar flight and
apparently the were getting concerned about fuel temp and asked for a
lower FL but didn't get it.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 1:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 3:20*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Tina > wrote
> >> innews:a1277cd8-28db-416c-9034-1bf02c02
> > :
>
> >> > No independent verification of this, but interesting
>
> >> > BOEING 777 Crash
>
> >> > Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the
>
> >> > approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF
> >> > transmitter to block out
>
> >> > any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
> >> > mile
>
> >> > range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine
> >> > controls) to sense a
>
> >> > "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust
> >> > situation for
>
> >> > the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>
> >> > We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
>
> >> > potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the
> >> > bad guys
>
> >> > could use to bring down an airliner.
>
> >> > On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
> >> >> shear cou
> >> > ld have been an issue.
>
> >> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
> >> _apbritai.
> >> >> ..
>
> >> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
> >> happened.
> >> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a
> >> hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down
> >> in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I was thinking that slush in the tanks may have been behind the power
> > loss. *If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and changed pitch
> > attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked into the fuel
> > lines. *Only a small amount of water slush would have been required to
> > cause a problem. *Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may even
> > have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but too late
> > to restore power to the engines. * Just a thought...
>
> Could be, but the fuel itself can freeze. it was a polar flight and
> apparently the were getting concerned about fuel temp and asked for a
> lower *FL but didn't get it.
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True, diesel does turn to jelly at low enough temperatures, so it may
be that thickened fuel was sucked into the lines, and this still could
have been associated with the pitch attitude change on final... good
point.

[Tina]

Isn't it stretching things to think it would happen to both engines at
the same time when they are drawing from two different tanks? That's
stacking a lot of "If's" in a row.

On Mar 17, 4:49 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote :
>
> > > On Mar 16, 3:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> Tina > wrote
> > >> innews:a1277cd8-28db-416c-9034-1bf02c02
> > > :
>
> > >> > No independent verification of this, but interesting
>
> > >> > BOEING 777 Crash
>
> > >> > Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the
>
> > >> > approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF
> > >> > transmitter to block out
>
> > >> > any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
> > >> > mile
>
> > >> > range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine
> > >> > controls) to sense a
>
> > >> > "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust
> > >> > situation for
>
> > >> > the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>
> > >> > We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
>
> > >> > potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the
> > >> > bad guys
>
> > >> > could use to bring down an airliner.
>
> > >> > On Jan 17, 8:23 pm, "Blueskies" >
> > >> > wrote:
>
> > >> >> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
> > >> >> shear cou
> > >> > ld have been an issue.
>
> > >> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
> > >> _apbritai.
> > >> >> ..
>
> > >> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
> > >> happened.
> > >> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a
> > >> hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down
> > >> in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>
> > >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I was thinking that slush in the tanks may have been behind the power
> > > loss. If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and changed pitch
> > > attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked into the fuel
> > > lines. Only a small amount of water slush would have been required to
> > > cause a problem. Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may even
> > > have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but too late
> > > to restore power to the engines. Just a thought...
>
> > Could be, but the fuel itself can freeze. it was a polar flight and
> > apparently the were getting concerned about fuel temp and asked for a
> > lower FL but didn't get it.
>
> > Bertie
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> True, diesel does turn to jelly at low enough temperatures, so it may
> be that thickened fuel was sucked into the lines, and this still could
> have been associated with the pitch attitude change on final... good
> point.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 4:22*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Isn't it stretching things to think it would happen to both engines at
> the same time when they are drawing from two different tanks? That's
> stacking a lot of "If's" in *a row.
>
> On Mar 17, 4:49 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 1:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > wrote :
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 3:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > > >> Tina > wrote
> > > >> innews:a1277cd8-28db-416c-9034-1bf02c02
> > > > :
>
> > > >> > No independent verification of this, but interesting
>
> > > >> > BOEING 777 Crash
>
> > > >> > Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under the
>
> > > >> > approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF
> > > >> > transmitter to block out
>
> > > >> > any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a two
> > > >> > mile
>
> > > >> > range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine
> > > >> > controls) to sense a
>
> > > >> > "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust
> > > >> > situation for
>
> > > >> > the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>
> > > >> > We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
>
> > > >> > potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that the
> > > >> > bad guys
>
> > > >> > could use to bring down an airliner.
>
> > > >> > On Jan 17, 8:23 pm, "Blueskies" >
> > > >> > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like wind
> > > >> >> shear cou
> > > >> > ld have been an issue.
>
> > > >> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
> > > >> _apbritai.
> > > >> >> ..
>
> > > >> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time it
> > > >> happened.
> > > >> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a
> > > >> hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool down
> > > >> in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>
> > > >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I was thinking that slush in the tanks may have been behind the power
> > > > loss. *If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and changed pitch
> > > > attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked into the fuel
> > > > lines. *Only a small amount of water slush would have been required to
> > > > cause a problem. *Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may even
> > > > have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but too late
> > > > to restore power to the engines. * Just a thought...
>
> > > Could be, but the fuel itself can freeze. it was a polar flight and
> > > apparently the were getting concerned about fuel temp and asked for a
> > > lower *FL but didn't get it.
>
> > > Bertie
>
> > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > True, diesel does turn to jelly at low enough temperatures, so it may
> > be that thickened fuel was sucked into the lines, and this still could
> > have been associated with the pitch attitude change on final... *good
> > point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not if both tanks were at similar levels, and both had similar ratios
of jelled and ungelled fuel. The change in pitch attitude on final
approach would cause both inlets to draw from the same waterline in
the tanks at the same time. The fact that the problem occured while
the plane was on final and not during cruise is pretty suspicious.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Mar 17, 1:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:aa884032-60e0-46f8-996b-d201422eca30@e10g2000
> prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 16, 3:20*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Tina > wrote
>> >> innews:a1277cd8-28db-416c-9034-1bf02c02
>> > :
>>
>> >> > No independent verification of this, but interesting
>>
>> >> > BOEING 777 Crash
>>
>> >> > Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing under
>> >> > the
>>
>> >> > approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF
>> >> > transmitter to block out
>>
>> >> > any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has a
>> >> > two mile
>>
>> >> > range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine
>> >> > controls) to sense a
>>
>> >> > "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust
>> >> > situation for
>>
>> >> > the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>>
>> >> > We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could be
>>
>> >> > potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology that
>> >> > the bad guys
>>
>> >> > could use to bring down an airliner.
>>
>> >> > On Jan 17, 8:23*pm, "Blueskies" >
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like
>> >> >> wind shear cou
>> >> > ld have been an issue.
>>
>> >> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
>> >> _apbritai.
>> >> >> ..
>>
>> >> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the time
>> >> it happened.
>> >> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll be a
>> >> hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one spool
>> >> down in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>>
>> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > I was thinking that slush in the tanks may have been behind the
>> > power loss. *If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and
>> > changed pitch attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked
>> > into the fuel lines. *Only a small amount of water slush would have
>> > been required to
>
>> > cause a problem. *Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may even
>> > have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but too
>> > late to restore power to the engines. * Just a thought...
>>
>> Could be, but the fuel itself can freeze. it was a polar flight and
>> apparently the were getting concerned about fuel temp and asked for a
>> lower *FL but didn't get it.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> True, diesel does turn to jelly at low enough temperatures, so it may
> be that thickened fuel was sucked into the lines, and this still could
> have been associated with the pitch attitude change on final... good
> point.


Well, the pitch attitude probably had little to do with it, more than
likely they were at or near idle with a low FF demand and when they
spooled up to stabilise after flap extension the increased demand caused
the problem. Hard to know zand the report shouldn't be too long coming
out. There has been some scuttlebut to that effect, though. Older
airplanes used bleed air, as well as engine oil and hydraulic heat
exchangers to keep the fuel warm, but the modern ones skipped the belts
and braces bleed air, which is the hottest, of course.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> Isn't it stretching things to think it would happen to both engines at
> the same time when they are drawing from two different tanks? That's
> stacking a lot of "If's" in a row.
>


It's not an if. When kerosene gets cold enough it waxes. Both tanks were
exposed to the same temps for many hours. Probably somthing in the region
of -65 C.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Mar 17, 4:22*pm, Tina > wrote:
>> Isn't it stretching things to think it would happen to both engines
>> at the same time when they are drawing from two different tanks?
>> That's stacking a lot of "If's" in *a row.
>>
>> On Mar 17, 4:49 pm, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 17, 1:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > > wrote
>> > > innews:aa884032-60e0-46f8-996b-d201422eca30@e10g
> 2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 16, 3:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > > >> Tina > wrote
>> > > >> innews:a1277cd8-28db-416c-9034-1bf02c02
>> > > > :
>>
>> > > >> > No independent verification of this, but interesting
>>
>> > > >> > BOEING 777 Crash
>>
>> > > >> > Prime Minister Dr. Gordon Brown's motorcade was passing
>> > > >> > under the
>
>>
>> > > >> > approach path of BA038. His security system utilized an RF
>> > > >> > transmitter to block out
>>
>> > > >> > any cell-phone triggered devices. Apparently this system has
>> > > >> > a tw
> o
>> > > >> > mile
>>
>> > > >> > range, and it caused the Boeing 777 EEC's (electronic engine
>> > > >> > controls) to sense a
>>
>> > > >> > "overboost" situation, thereby commanding a reduced-thrust
>> > > >> > situation for
>>
>> > > >> > the engines, simultaneously. Most interesting.
>>
>> > > >> > We'll see how Boeing and the BAA handle this one. This could
>> > > >> > be
>>
>> > > >> > potentially bad, in view of the simplicity of technology
>> > > >> > that the
>
>> > > >> > bad guys
>>
>> > > >> > could use to bring down an airliner.
>>
>> > > >> > On Jan 17, 8:23 pm, "Blueskies"
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >> What the heck happened? Fuel starvation? Doesn't sound like
>> > > >> >> wind
>
>> > > >> >> shear cou
>> > > >> > ld have been an issue.
>>
>> > > >> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004130291
>> > > >> _apbritai.
>> > > >> >> ..
>>
>> > > >> This was brought up by some newspaper or another around the
>> > > >> time it
>
>> > > >> happened.
>> > > >> It's looking like it was fuel waxing in any case, but they'll
>> > > >> be a hile with this one. Meanwhile some other airline had one
>> > > >> spool down
>
>> > > >> in a similar fashion in LA, I think it was.
>>
>> > > >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > I was thinking that slush in the tanks may have been behind the
>> > > > powe
> r
>> > > > loss. *If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and changed
>> > > > pit
> ch
>> > > > attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked into the
>> > > > fuel lines. *Only a small amount of water slush would have been
>> > > > require
> d to
>> > > > cause a problem. *Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may
>> > > > eve
> n
>> > > > have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but
>> > > > too lat
> e
>> > > > to restore power to the engines. * Just a thought...
>>
>> > > Could be, but the fuel itself can freeze. it was a polar flight
>> > > and apparently the were getting concerned about fuel temp and
>> > > asked for a lower *FL but didn't get it.
>>
>> > > Bertie
>>
>> > > - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > True, diesel does turn to jelly at low enough temperatures, so it
>> > may be that thickened fuel was sucked into the lines, and this
>> > still could have been associated with the pitch attitude change on
>> > final... *good point.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Not if both tanks were at similar levels, and both had similar ratios
> of jelled and ungelled fuel. The change in pitch attitude on final
> approach would cause both inlets to draw from the same waterline in
> the tanks at the same time. The fact that the problem occured while
> the plane was on final and not during cruise is pretty suspicious.
>

Not really. FF would have been low for a considerable period. FF would
be higher on approahc than in the cruise.

Bertie

[Big John[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:33:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Tina > wrote in
:
>
>> Isn't it stretching things to think it would happen to both engines at
>> the same time when they are drawing from two different tanks? That's
>> stacking a lot of "If's" in a row.
>>
>
>
>It's not an if. When kerosene gets cold enough it waxes. Both tanks were
>exposed to the same temps for many hours. Probably somthing in the region
>of -65 C.
>
>
>Bertie
************************************************** *************************************************

Bertie

Before the Airlines started flying jets the Air Force ran into a fuel
problem in their jets at altitude. Can't remember now if it was ice
xtyls forming in the fuel or waxing as you say but the Air Force
started putting an additive in their fuel that stopped that problem
and the Airlines picked up on it when they started flying jets I was
told.

The basic problem was that the xtyls would form in the fuel and then
pack the filter and stop fuel flow.

Do the Airlines still use the/a additive in their fuel for the high
altitude problem?

Hope you had a good St Paddies day :o)

Erin go bre

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:33:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Tina > wrote in
>>news:f9919557-7cf1-4224-86c4-
:
>>
>>> Isn't it stretching things to think it would happen to both engines
>>> at the same time when they are drawing from two different tanks?
>>> That's stacking a lot of "If's" in a row.
>>>
>>
>>
>>It's not an if. When kerosene gets cold enough it waxes. Both tanks
>>were exposed to the same temps for many hours. Probably somthing in
>>the region of -65 C.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
> ************************************************** ********************
*
> ****************************
>
> Bertie
>
> Before the Airlines started flying jets the Air Force ran into a fuel
> problem in their jets at altitude. Can't remember now if it was ice
> xtyls forming in the fuel or waxing as you say but the Air Force
> started putting an additive in their fuel that stopped that problem
> and the Airlines picked up on it when they started flying jets I was
> told.
>
> The basic problem was that the xtyls would form in the fuel and then
> pack the filter and stop fuel flow.
>
> Do the Airlines still use the/a additive in their fuel for the high
> altitude problem?



Dunno. I know they used to put at least one additive in that had to be
added as the fuel was loaded. Prist was one such producet. but I've
never had anything like that added. whatever formula the fuel is made to
arrives at the airplane like that. I don't normally do flight long
enough or at lattitudes high enough to get fuel icing. I did have a
pretty exciting blocakge due to ice in avgas once, but never with
kerosene. I guess the lowest fuel temp I've seen is about -25C
>
> Hope you had a good St Paddies day :o)

Working!
>
> Erin go bre

Go Ma

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Robert Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Big John wrote
>> Before the Airlines started flying jets the Air Force ran into a fuel
>> problem in their jets at altitude. Can't remember now if it was ice
>> xtyls forming in the fuel or waxing as you say but the Air Force
>> started putting an additive in their fuel that stopped that problem
>> and the Airlines picked up on it when they started flying jets I was
>> told.
>
> I flew the first generation jets (B-707) for the first major operator,
> PanAm. There was nothing in our manuals about a fuel additive being
> used,and we bought fuel all over the world. We used bleed air to deice
> the fuel filter. One minute ON every thirty minutes if Tank temp was
> below zero degrees centigrade or one minute ON if any icing light
> illuminated.
>
> However, if the tank temp dropped below three degrees centigrade above
> the freeze point of the particular fuel on board, the pilot was
required
> to take one of the following actions:
>
> 1. Increase IAS to warm up the wing.
> 2. Descend to a warmer cruise altitude.
> 3 Reroute to a more southernly route.
>
>> The basic problem was that the xtyls would form in the fuel and then
>> pack the filter and stop fuel flow.
>
> The fuel filter was located between the first and second stages of the
> fuel pump. Any blockage of the filter opened a bypass around the fuel
> filter. So....a blocked filter would NOT stop the fuel flow. Actually,
> there were two bypasses, one as just described and a second one around
> both the pump first stage and the filter.
>
> I would strongly suspect that Boeing still provides at least this same
> level of protection for its current generation of jetliners.
>
Nope. And I have no idea why. The A300 didn't have one either.
There's certainly no control for it in the flight deck, and if there was
an automatic syste, they would have had to have told us about it since a
malfunction would mean an insanely high oil temp. ( I had three
shutdowns in 727s due to fuel heat getting stuck on)

>> Do the Airlines still use the/a additive in their fuel for the high
>> altitude problem?
>
> Never did as far as I know. The corporate guys do add Prist, probably
> due to the much thinner wings.


Yeah, I've never seen it added to an airliner's fuel either. I've a
vague recollecton of seeing prist added to a lear's fuel with a special
fitting on the fuel hose accepting a can of prist. But AFAIK we don't
have anything.


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:55:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>Yeah, I've never seen it added to an airliner's fuel either. I've a
>vague recollecton of seeing prist added to a lear's fuel with a special
>fitting on the fuel hose accepting a can of prist. But AFAIK we don't
>have anything.

I might have this backward, just working into the jet buring world,
but are you loading Jet-A or Jet-A1? Generally isn't Prist in Jet-A
since it has a higher gelling point? I think Prist also has an
antimicrobial effect, helps in the Jet-A stuff that doesn't fly as
much as a jetliner.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:55:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, I've never seen it added to an airliner's fuel either. I've a
>>vague recollecton of seeing prist added to a lear's fuel with a
special
>>fitting on the fuel hose accepting a can of prist. But AFAIK we don't
>>have anything.
>
> I might have this backward, just working into the jet buring world,
> but are you loading Jet-A or Jet-A1? Generally isn't Prist in Jet-A
> since it has a higher gelling point? I think Prist also has an
> antimicrobial effect, helps in the Jet-A stuff that doesn't fly as
> much as a jetliner.
>


We use both, depending on where we're getting it. We also get some
oddball wide cut stuff in some places. It's fine, but we have to be more
careful loading as it lights up pretty easily. We don't pay too much
attention to what we uplift since we don't spend enough time at cruise
to get it cold enough to worry about. I don't know of any additives ever
added to anything i've flown. I did get a fuel blockage from water in
suspension in 100LL years ago, but I think they fixed that problem.


Bertie