The 777 crash - another theory

[D Ramapriya]

Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece

Ramapriya

[Phil J]

On Jan 22, 9:27*am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> Ramapriya

I doubt that the Boeing engineer meant a phone call when he said "A
communication failure will be looked at more than anything." From
what I have read about this incident, it sounds like the engines
refused to respond to commands from the cockpit. I suspect that is
the communication failure the Boeing engineer is talking about. I
suppose it is possible that a cell phone aboard the aircraft could
have interfered with the computer system that relays pilot commands to
the engines, although that seems unlikely. I have a suspicion this is
going to turn out to be a software problem.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jan 22, 4:27*pm, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> Ramapriya

I´m not even gonna read that.

The Sun will probably have it tied into "Diana´s murder" and Maddie´s
kidnapping by the end of the week.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

D Ramapriya wrote:
> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
> http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece

Ah, The Sun. An always reliable source of information...

[Thomas Borchert]

D,

> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down.
>

Again, let's please wait for the accident investigators to do their
job. And above all, let's not put our faith in "journalism" from the
likes of The Sun.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

D,

> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down.
>

Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not try
some accuracy?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jan 22, 5:33*pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> D,
>
> > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> > to shut down.
>
> Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
> it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not try
> some accuracy?

Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?



Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?
>

Hmm, what am I missing here!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[ManhattanMan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> On Jan 22, 5:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> D,
>>
>>> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>>> to shut down.
>>
>> Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
>> it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not
>> try some accuracy?
>
> Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?
>
>
>


Hey, comon, cut the guy some slack. Here he's come up with a perfectly
plausable solution, and you guys can't accept it.
Here they were on a short final, the phone rings, they hit 'pause' and take
the call - simple - hell, Mxmoron even missed it!! :)

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 22, 8:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> D,
>
> > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> > to shut down.
>
> Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
> it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not try
> some accuracy?


I was merely citing the article which begins with, "Transport
Department investigators are probing the possibility a crossed line
diverted a call to the Boeing 777, interfering with its computers and
shutting down the engines."

Ergo, that isn't my verdict (for the want of a better term).

And the article itself is all of ten sentences with no apparent
theorizing by the journalist but more a collage of cites of among
others a Boeing engineer and an incident involving an inadvertent call
transfer into an airplane flight deck.

Ramapriya

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 23, 5:58*am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
> > D,
>
> > > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> > > to shut down.
>
> > Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
> > it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not try
> > some accuracy?
>
> I was merely citing the article which begins with, "Transport
> Department investigators are probing the possibility a crossed line
> diverted a call to the Boeing 777, interfering with its computers and
> shutting down the engines."
>
> Ergo, that isn't my verdict (for the want of a better term).
>
> And the article itself is all of ten sentences with no apparent
> theorizing by the journalist but more a collage of cites of among
> others a Boeing engineer and an incident involving an inadvertent call
> transfer into an airplane flight deck.
>
> Ramapriya

The chances of a cell phone affecting a flight computer in this way
are so slight as to be negligible- cell phones don't generate that
much power (IMHO). Perhaps someone who knows the prelanding checks
might tell us if both engines are coupled to the same tank?
It so, it is far more likely to be a fuel issue.

Cheers

[Jules]

Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.




D Ramapriya wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
>>D,
>>
>>
>>>Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>>>to shut down.
>>
>>Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
>>it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not try
>>some accuracy?
>
>
>
> I was merely citing the article which begins with, "Transport
> Department investigators are probing the possibility a crossed line
> diverted a call to the Boeing 777, interfering with its computers and
> shutting down the engines."
>
> Ergo, that isn't my verdict (for the want of a better term).
>
> And the article itself is all of ten sentences with no apparent
> theorizing by the journalist but more a collage of cites of among
> others a Boeing engineer and an incident involving an inadvertent call
> transfer into an airplane flight deck.
>
> Ramapriya

[LWG]

It's only a matter of hours before they connect the crash to Global Warming
and George Bush.


>The Sun will probably have it tied into "Diana´s murder" and Maddie´s
>kidnapping by the end of the week.


>Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

LWG wrote:
>It's only a matter of hours before they connect the crash to Global Warming
>and George Bush.
>

Its obvious!! jeez man, get a clue.


truth be told...Global warming has ruined my psychic abilities.

And its because of George Bush that I have dingey whites.

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

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 23, 12:44 am, Jules >
wrote:
> Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
> people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.


I confess to getting worn to a frazzle about such matters years ago
until it dawned that unless I'm being attacked over the truth, it
doesn't matter at all. Ditto over the past few days too. If people get
worked up and irksome, howsoever warranted or otherwise, over
inaccurately used words and vent diatribe, too bad. But the seriously
good side-effect of it all is that I think my conveyancing may
actually be improving all the time :)

Ramapriya

[Jules]

It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
Perhaps they are lunatics?

The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane. On 747-400 this
can not be initiated from the ground. Can it be on the 777? Tomorrow I
may phone a friend of mine and ask. I can't imagine what actually
happened???? Can maintenance call up the plnane and access the ships
systems? Could it be a one in a million chance of it happening by
accident? Did someone activate their cellphone and call and say, "Honey
wel will be landing soon."???

How is it on Airbus? On some I was told maintenance is always in the
loop. And if anything goes wrong a report is datalinked right away.
Perhaps mr airbus will shed some light on this???



D Ramapriya wrote:
> On Jan 23, 12:44 am, Jules >
> wrote:
>
>>Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
>>people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.
>
>
>
> I confess to getting worn to a frazzle about such matters years ago
> until it dawned that unless I'm being attacked over the truth, it
> doesn't matter at all. Ditto over the past few days too. If people get
> worked up and irksome, howsoever warranted or otherwise, over
> inaccurately used words and vent diatribe, too bad. But the seriously
> good side-effect of it all is that I think my conveyancing may
> actually be improving all the time :)
>
> Ramapriya

[Jules]

I don't see anything wrong with his posting that link.

If your excuse is, 'his other sins, on other occasions', then you owe
him an apology.

But the article post was appreciated my me, and perhaps, me alone

Which Airbus' do you fly?






Airbus wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
>>people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.
>>
>
>
>
> It is SOP to de-mask and challenge lunabics who try to come across as
> exferts, when there are knowledgeable people present and ready to answer.
> Mxsmanic is the world champion, but the present contributor is no slounch in
> the matter.
>
> Perhaps you didn't see his prebious post, in which he suggested the BA crew
> should not have executed an emergency evacuation after a crash landing in a
> field. He felt it would have been smarter to wait for the air stairs to
> arrive and should these not easily get across the drainage ditches, the
> best solution would have been ladders, and only after these proved to be
> "too short" would deployment of the slides have been advisable.
>
> He proffered ridicule for the brew for having quickly adopted this
> solution, when he could have simply asked (because he doesn't know) whether
> this was the best choice.
>
> No picking away at carcasses for people who ask questions for things they
> don't know about . . .
>

[Jules]

Jules wrote:

>
> Which Airbus' do you fly?
>

What I also meant to ask is...

and can any data links or phone patchs be ground initiated?

[Phil J]

On Jan 22, 9:45*pm, Jules >
wrote:
> It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
> Perhaps they are lunatics?
>
> The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
> bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane.

That incident happened ten weeks ago to a different 777. There is no
mention whatsoever that it happened again to this flight. All they
are really saying is this happened ten weeks ago, maybe it happened
again. I think the chances are pretty slim. I can buy a pilot having
his cellphone on when he is waiting on a taxi-way for takeoff
clearance. But why would a pilot have a cellphone on during final
approach after a very long over-ocean flight?

Phil

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
>http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
>Ramapriya

After publishing this I think The Sun will have to forgo the right to
publish on April 1st! And to think they missed the opportunity to posit
that it was Diana calling - from Paris - proof she is still alive!!

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 23, 7:45 am, Jules >
wrote:
> It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
> Perhaps they are lunatics?


Myopic for any investigator - forensic, medical, accident, etc. - to
disregard anything within the ambit of possibilities.


> How is it on Airbus? On some I was told maintenance is always in the
> loop. And if anything goes wrong a report is datalinked right away.
> Perhaps mr airbus will shed some light on this???


Capt. Doug, if he still posts here, could tell. I know he flies an
A320 and is one of this ng's more readable posters.

Ramapriya

[muff528]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
>D Ramapriya wrote:
>> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>> to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
>> http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> Ah, The Sun. An always reliable source of information...


I see that page 3 still has some interesting stuff.

TP

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> It's only a matter of hours before they connect the crash to Global
> Warming and George Bush.
>

The Sun? It's a Murdoch paper, isn't it? They don't do that!

they just do Page three.


>
>>The Sun will probably have it tied into "Diana´s murder" and Maddie´s
>>kidnapping by the end of the week.
>
>
>>Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?
>>
>
> Hmm, what am I missing here!
>

Different thread, same character.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 5:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
>> wrote:
>>> D,
>>>
>>>> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's
>>>> engine to shut down.
>>>
>>> Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
>>> it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not
>>> try some accuracy?
>>
>> Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Hey, comon, cut the guy some slack. Here he's come up with a
> perfectly plausable solution, and you guys can't accept it.


I can accept it, that isn't the issue.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:e79540ae-7388-42ab-a863-
:

> On Jan 22, 8:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> D,
>>
>> > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>> > to shut down.
>>
>> Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
>> it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not try
>> some accuracy?
>
>
> I was merely citing the article which begins with, "Transport
> Department investigators are probing the possibility a crossed line
> diverted a call to the Boeing 777, interfering with its computers and
> shutting down the engines."
>
> Ergo, that isn't my verdict (for the want of a better term).
>
> And the article itself is all of ten sentences with no apparent
> theorizing by the journalist but more a collage of cites of among
> others a Boeing engineer and an incident involving an inadvertent call
> transfer into an airplane flight deck.


Funny, I don't remember seeing a phone in the flight deck.

I'll have a good ol look around tomorrow.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jules > wrote in news:yAslj.12132
:

> Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
> people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.
>



Who's picking away at anyone? It's not his idea, he said so.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jules > wrote in
:

> I don't see anything wrong with his posting that link.
>
> If your excuse is, 'his other sins, on other occasions', then you owe
> him an apology.
>
> But the article post was appreciated my me, and perhaps, me alone



The sun is perhaps the biggest asswipe of a newspaper I've ever seen.

People who read it and believe anything in it should be disqualified form
voting. Especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and a habit of
embarking on idiotic military adventures.


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jules > wrote in news:OZylj.2341
:

>
>
> Jules wrote:
>
>>
>> Which Airbus' do you fly?
>>
>
> What I also meant to ask is...
>
> and can any data links or phone patchs be ground initiated?
>
>

No.
We can get the phone signal in the headset IF the phone is real close and
it can fire of xponder responses, period.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:73797348-6fbd-4036-879e-
:

> On Jan 23, 12:44 am, Jules >
> wrote:
>> Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
>> people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.
>
>
> I confess to getting worn to a frazzle about such matters years ago
> until it dawned that unless I'm being attacked over the truth, it
> doesn't matter at all. Ditto over the past few days too. If people get
> worked up and irksome, howsoever warranted or otherwise, over
> inaccurately used words and vent diatribe, too bad. But the seriously
> good side-effect of it all is that I think my conveyancing may
> actually be improving all the time :)


God, what was it like before?


BTW, who's irked? Someone has waaay to high an opinion of his opinion.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jules > wrote in news:yLylj.2338
:

> It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
> Perhaps they are lunatics?
>
> The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
> bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane.


We don't have a ****ing phone on the airplane!
Except my own cellphone which I use to call up and whine at (s)crewing.


Bertie>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Phil J > wrote in news:1c2d0129-f7fb-4404-900a-
:

> On Jan 22, 9:45*pm, Jules >
> wrote:
>> It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
>> Perhaps they are lunatics?
>>
>> The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
>> bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane.
>
> That incident happened ten weeks ago to a different 777. There is no
> mention whatsoever that it happened again to this flight. All they
> are really saying is this happened ten weeks ago, maybe it happened
> again. I think the chances are pretty slim. I can buy a pilot having
> his cellphone on when he is waiting on a taxi-way for takeoff
> clearance. But why would a pilot have a cellphone on during final
> approach after a very long over-ocean flight?

We don't have them on at all. It is on the pre-start checklist to turn them
off.


Bertie

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
>people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.
>


It is SOP to de-mask and challenge lunatics who try to come across as
experts, when there are knowledgeable people present and ready to answer.
Mxsmanic is the world champion, but the present contributor is no slouch in
the matter.

Perhaps you didn't see his previous post, in which he suggested the BA crew
should not have executed an emergency evacuation after a crash landing in a
field. He felt it would have been smarter to wait for the air stairs to
arrive and should these not easily get across the drainage ditches, the
best solution would have been ladders, and only after these proved to be
"too short" would deployment of the slides have been advisable.

He proffered ridicule for the crew for having quickly adopted this
solution, when he could have simply asked (because he doesn't know) whether
this was the best choice.

No picking away at carcasses for people who ask questions for things they
don't know about . . .

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:85e1fbf3-1050-4c39-aa43-
:

> On Jan 23, 7:45 am, Jules >
> wrote:
>> It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
>> Perhaps they are lunatics?
>
>
> Myopic for any investigator - forensic, medical, accident, etc. - to
> disregard anything within the ambit of possibilities.
>


Martians flying in a teapot aiming marshmallow clovers at the airplane did
it.



What's the bets the Sun would print that?


I know I'd lay down a large bet on them doing so.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Airbus > wrote in :

> In article
> >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>>to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
>>http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>>
>>Ramapriya
>
> After publishing this I think The Sun will have to forgo the right to
> publish on April 1st! And to think they missed the opportunity to posit
> that it was Diana calling - from Paris - proof she is still alive!!
>
>

For those unfamiliar with the Sun, this is a sample of their wares:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article715636.ece

Classy, eh? Have a look around the site, it's hilarious if nothing else.

It's a garbage Brit scandal sheet One of many. Not content with polluting
Britain's mind with it, they're franchising all over the place.

If they ran a headline saying the sun ws going to rise in the east tomorrow
I would't beleive it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 22, 7:27 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> Ramapriya

Surely the tabloids can offer a better explanation for the mysterious
loss of power.

Here's a few:

- Man in nearby flat, fed up with noise fires home-made
Electromagnetic Pulse device (modified toaster) at approaching BA
flight

- Prime Minister presses wrong button in his Jaguar -- blames Q-branch
for confusion.

- Boeing admits forgetting to remove "off switch" from test designs.

- Faulty coffee maker shorts cabin electrics.

- Pilot claims he saw a Blue Police Box materialize in flight path,
panics.

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 23, 11:45 am, wrote:
>
> - Pilot claims he saw a Blue Police Box materialize in flight path, panics.


One other could be, "Cable connecting the throttle to the throttle
sensor inexplicably snaps" ;)

Ramapriya

[Thomas Borchert]

Jules,

> The article
>

We're talking about "The Sun". To qualify anything in that newspaper as
an "article" is an insult to journalism.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 23, 7:08*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jules > wrote in news:yLylj.2338
> :

>
> We don't have a ****ing phone on the airplane!
> Except my own cellphone which I use to call up and whine at (s)crewing.
>


Aha! So that explains the whine a poster was asking about the other
day!
Does anyone know if both engines feed off the same tank(s) on
approach? It was at the end of a 10 hour flight wasn't it?

Cheers

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 23, 1:15 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if both engines feed off the same tank(s) on
> approach? It was at the end of a 10 hour flight wasn't it?


Don't know about the 777 but I've heard that on the A320 and A330,
there are six main pumps - two in the center tank and two in each
inner tank, and each engine is fed with one pump in the center tank
and with the two pumps in its own side inner tank. When inner tanks
reach low level, valves between outer and inner open and an automatic
gravity transfer occurs (on one of the A330 variants, fuel transfers
from center tank to wing tanks are managed through a transfer valve).

Ramapriya

[Tina]

If the software used for control has any component in it that came
from the Seattle Washington area my guess is someone pressed alt-
control-delete.


On Jan 22, 10:27 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> Ramapriya

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Jan 23, 7:08*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jules > wrote in
>> news:yLylj.2338 :
>
>>
>> We don't have a ****ing phone on the airplane!
>> Except my own cellphone which I use to call up and whine at
>> (s)crewing.
>>
>
>
> Aha! So that explains the whine a poster was asking about the other
> day!
> Does anyone know if both engines feed off the same tank(s) on
> approach? It was at the end of a 10 hour flight wasn't it?

Well, they shouldn't be off the same tank. It's always tank to engine on
approach in any case fo rany transport aircraft. During climb and cruise
you'd uce the center tank, but even then when it runs out it automatically
feeds from the appropriate wing tank in any transport. The fuel systems are
really incredibly simple from the pilot's point of view. You turn all the
pumps on and forget them until you're parked at the other end.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in news:3a2a1504-fbc3-4f53-938e-
:

> On Jan 23, 1:15 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know if both engines feed off the same tank(s) on
>> approach? It was at the end of a 10 hour flight wasn't it?
>
>
> Don't know about the 777 but I've heard that on the A320 and A330,
> there are six main pumps - two in the center tank and two in each
> inner tank, and each engine is fed with one pump in the center tank
> and with the two pumps in its own side inner tank. When inner tanks
> reach low level, valves between outer and inner open and an automatic
> gravity transfer occurs (on one of the A330 variants, fuel transfers
> from center tank to wing tanks are managed through a transfer valve).

Nope. You can't transfer fuel from one tank to another in flight.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Jules wrote:
> It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
> Perhaps they are lunatics?
>
> The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
> bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane. On 747-400 this
> can not be initiated from the ground. Can it be on the 777? Tomorrow I
> may phone a friend of mine and ask. I can't imagine what actually
> happened???? Can maintenance call up the plnane and access the ships
> systems? Could it be a one in a million chance of it happening by
> accident? Did someone activate their cellphone and call and say, "Honey
> wel will be landing soon."???
>
> How is it on Airbus? On some I was told maintenance is always in the
> loop. And if anything goes wrong a report is datalinked right away.
> Perhaps mr airbus will shed some light on this???
>

Please remember that "The Sun" is roughly comparable to the "National
Enquirer."

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
>> people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.
>
>
> I confess to getting worn to a frazzle about such matters years ago
> until it dawned that unless I'm being attacked over the truth, it
> doesn't matter at all. Ditto over the past few days too. If people get
> worked up and irksome, howsoever warranted or otherwise, over
> inaccurately used words and vent diatribe, too bad. But the seriously
> good side-effect of it all is that I think my conveyancing may
> actually be improving all the time :)

I don't know if "The Sun" is the best source of aviation news -- but IMHO
any poster that can use "myopic", "ergo", and "conveyancing" in a single
thread has carried the day...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:knIlj.45$v.43@attbi_s22:

>>> Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
>>> people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.
>>
>>
>> I confess to getting worn to a frazzle about such matters years ago
>> until it dawned that unless I'm being attacked over the truth, it
>> doesn't matter at all. Ditto over the past few days too. If people
>> get worked up and irksome, howsoever warranted or otherwise, over
>> inaccurately used words and vent diatribe, too bad. But the seriously
>> good side-effect of it all is that I think my conveyancing may
>> actually be improving all the time :)
>
> I don't know if "The Sun" is the best source of aviation news -- but
> IMHO any poster that can use "myopic", "ergo", and "conveyancing" in a
> single thread has carried the day...


You would.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Jules wrote:
>> It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
>> Perhaps they are lunatics?
>>
>> The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
>> bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane. On 747-400
this
>> can not be initiated from the ground. Can it be on the 777? Tomorrow
I
>> may phone a friend of mine and ask. I can't imagine what actually
>> happened???? Can maintenance call up the plnane and access the ships
>> systems? Could it be a one in a million chance of it happening by
>> accident? Did someone activate their cellphone and call and say,
"Honey
>> wel will be landing soon."???
>>
>> How is it on Airbus? On some I was told maintenance is always in the
>> loop. And if anything goes wrong a report is datalinked right away.
>> Perhaps mr airbus will shed some light on this???
>>
>
> Please remember that "The Sun" is roughly comparable to the "National
> Enquirer."
>

Maybe even worse, but the scary thing is it's not sold in supermarket
checkout lines to people who bite the heads off chickens. It has a huge
circulation. One of the biggest in Britain.

Most of their other papers aren't much better and they actualy have a
few that are worse. Their equivelant of the Enquirer was called he Sport
and it was simply beyond belief. I used to look for it lying around in
pubs and such when I would be in the UK. (no way would I pay for it) It
had such gems in it as "World War 2 Nazi bomber found on moon" (I'm not
kidding).
But they really only have two what you might call genuine newspapers and
both of those are so politically polarised as to make them next to
useless as well.

Bertie

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 23, 6:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> D Ramapriya > wrote in news:3a2a1504-fbc3-4f53-938e-
> :
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:15 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >> Does anyone know if both engines feed off the same tank(s) on
> >> approach? It was at the end of a 10 hour flight wasn't it?
>
> > Don't know about the 777 but I've heard that on the A320 and A330,
> > there are six main pumps - two in the center tank and two in each
> > inner tank, and each engine is fed with one pump in the center tank
> > and with the two pumps in its own side inner tank. When inner tanks
> > reach low level, valves between outer and inner open and an automatic
> > gravity transfer occurs (on one of the A330 variants, fuel transfers
> > from center tank to wing tanks are managed through a transfer valve).
>
> Nope. You can't transfer fuel from one tank to another in flight.
>
> Bertie


I could be wrong but ISTR that in a 777, if a center pump has low
output pressure with more than 1.1 t of fuel remaining, an EICAS
advisory message is displayed and the pilot has to operate a scavenge
system to transfer any remaining center tank fuel to the main tanks,
with actual transfer itself beginning only when either main tank
quantity is less than 13.1 t. ISTR also that in newer-generation 777s,
the scavenge system can be set to operate automatically.

Ramapriya

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

D Ramapriya > wrote in
:

> On Jan 23, 6:17 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> D Ramapriya > wrote in
>> news:3a2a1504-fbc3-4f53-938e-
>> :
>>
>> > On Jan 23, 1:15 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> >> Does anyone know if both engines feed off the same tank(s) on
>> >> approach? It was at the end of a 10 hour flight wasn't it?
>>
>> > Don't know about the 777 but I've heard that on the A320 and A330,
>> > there are six main pumps - two in the center tank and two in each
>> > inner tank, and each engine is fed with one pump in the center tank
>> > and with the two pumps in its own side inner tank. When inner tanks
>> > reach low level, valves between outer and inner open and an
>> > automatic gravity transfer occurs (on one of the A330 variants,
>> > fuel transfers from center tank to wing tanks are managed through a
>> > transfer valve).
>>
>> Nope. You can't transfer fuel from one tank to another in flight.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> I could be wrong but ISTR that in a 777, if a center pump has low
> output pressure with more than 1.1 t of fuel remaining, an EICAS
> advisory message is displayed and the pilot has to operate a scavenge
> system to transfer any remaining center tank fuel to the main tanks,
> with actual transfer itself beginning only when either main tank
> quantity is less than 13.1 t. ISTR also that in newer-generation 777s,
> the scavenge system can be set to operate automatically.

I doubt it. There is no airliner I know of that allows fuel to be
transferred in flight.
I know a 777 pilot well. i'll ask him, but I'm pretty sure I know what
he'll say. We don't do scavenge, though. They feed. The only transfer is
to trim tanks.

Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Funny, I don't remember seeing a phone in the flight deck.
>
> I'll have a good ol look around tomorrow.
>
>
> Bertie

Well, that probably depends on the airline/aircraft, is sure possible to
have it installed as an option.
Several Business aircraft have them, mostly Iridium/Sat phone.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Funny, I don't remember seeing a phone in the flight deck.
>>
>> I'll have a good ol look around tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well, that probably depends on the airline/aircraft, is sure possible to
> have it installed as an option.

Nah. Nobody dos that on airliners. We have several methods of geting
messages to/from already, primarily ACARS.

> Several Business aircraft have them, mostly Iridium/Sat phone.


I doubt anyone has them n the cockpit, though.


Bertie

>

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> The sun is perhaps the biggest asswipe of a newspaper I've ever seen.

Agreed. And I'm a Brit (as you no doubt remember)

> People who read it and believe anything in it should be disqualified form
> voting. Especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and a habit of
> embarking on idiotic military adventures.

Hmm...oh. The irony. :)

Andy

[Jules]

Well this is all wild speculation, but in the end it may well turn out
to be something very simple.

D Ramapriya wrote:
> On Jan 23, 7:45 am, Jules >
> wrote:
>
>>It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
>>Perhaps they are lunatics?
>
>
>
> Myopic for any investigator - forensic, medical, accident, etc. - to
> disregard anything within the ambit of possibilities.
>
>
>
>>How is it on Airbus? On some I was told maintenance is always in the
>>loop. And if anything goes wrong a report is datalinked right away.
>>Perhaps mr airbus will shed some light on this???
>
>
>
> Capt. Doug, if he still posts here, could tell. I know he flies an
> A320 and is one of this ng's more readable posters.
>
> Ramapriya

[Al G[_1_]]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 5:58 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
> > D,
>
> > > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> > > to shut down.
>
> > Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you put
> > it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why not try
> > some accuracy?
>
> I was merely citing the article which begins with, "Transport
> Department investigators are probing the possibility a crossed line
> diverted a call to the Boeing 777, interfering with its computers and
> shutting down the engines."
>
> Ergo, that isn't my verdict (for the want of a better term).
>
> And the article itself is all of ten sentences with no apparent
> theorizing by the journalist but more a collage of cites of among
> others a Boeing engineer and an incident involving an inadvertent call
> transfer into an airplane flight deck.
>
> Ramapriya

The chances of a cell phone affecting a flight computer in this way
are so slight as to be negligible- cell phones don't generate that
much power (IMHO). Perhaps someone who knows the prelanding checks
might tell us if both engines are coupled to the same tank?
It so, it is far more likely to be a fuel issue.

Cheers

I believe the engines each feed from a tank in the wing they are
attached to. Redundancy required separate fuel supplies, fuel controls,
engine controls etc. There are very few items in common.
if it was a software issue, it would be interesting to find out why it
had not manifested itself in 6 years and 20,000+ hours.



Al G

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

wrote:

> - Faulty coffee maker shorts cabin electrics.

Splappy? Is that you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> The sun is perhaps the biggest asswipe of a newspaper I've ever seen.
>
> Agreed. And I'm a Brit (as you no doubt remember)
>
>> People who read it and believe anything in it should be disqualified
>> form voting. Especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and a
>> habit of embarking on idiotic military adventures.
>
> Hmm...oh. The irony. :)
>


Now now, you're making assumptions.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> news:b9b83f65-f3b4-4e65-86d4-8fe48425c829
@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Jan 23, 5:58 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 8:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > D,
>>
>> > > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's
>> > > engine to shut down.
>>
>> > Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you
>> > put it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why
>> > not try some accuracy?
>>
>> I was merely citing the article which begins with, "Transport
>> Department investigators are probing the possibility a crossed line
>> diverted a call to the Boeing 777, interfering with its computers and
>> shutting down the engines."
>>
>> Ergo, that isn't my verdict (for the want of a better term).
>>
>> And the article itself is all of ten sentences with no apparent
>> theorizing by the journalist but more a collage of cites of among
>> others a Boeing engineer and an incident involving an inadvertent
>> call transfer into an airplane flight deck.
>>
>> Ramapriya
>
> The chances of a cell phone affecting a flight computer in this way
> are so slight as to be negligible- cell phones don't generate that
> much power (IMHO). Perhaps someone who knows the prelanding checks
> might tell us if both engines are coupled to the same tank?


No, never.

> It so, it is far more likely to be a fuel issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> I believe the engines each feed from a tank in the wing they are
> attached to. Redundancy required separate fuel supplies, fuel
> controls, engine controls etc. There are very few items in common.
> if it was a software issue, it would be interesting to find out
> why it
> had not manifested itself in 6 years and 20,000+ hours.
>


Yeah, that's right, it's tank to engine for all takeoffs and landings.

Bertie
>
>

[Oskar Wagner]

Reading here for quite some while I'm kind of amused about how far the
theories have gone. Furthermore I also noticed a remarkable lack of system
knowledge leading to funny assumptions and - in your case - to funny "nope"
and "no, never" statements which are not true in every case. For large
transports it is a common abnormal handling to switch ALL fuel pumps on and
OPEN the crossfeed in case of low fuel quantity (e.g. close to or at final
reserve). Furthermore usually a (+) pitch limit is present. I'm not really
familiar with the twin Boeing systems but I'm sure they don't vary too much
from MD and Airbus. So a "never" regarding both engines fed from the same
tank ist not consistent as with open crossfeed ANY engine can be fed from
ANY tank that contains fuel.

This is just to clarify some system behaviour and not issueing a new rumour.
As a retired pilot with some 5 digit flight hours in large transports I will
never add any gossip... :-)) but just wait for te official outcome.
Everything else is useless.

--
Oskar
- - - - -
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...

"Bertie the Bunyip" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.. .
> "Al G" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>> news:b9b83f65-f3b4-4e65-86d4-8fe48425c829
> @p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
>> .. On Jan 23, 5:58 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>>> On Jan 22, 8:33 pm, Thomas Borchert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > D,
>>>
>>> > > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's
>>> > > engine to shut down.
>>>
>>> > Oh, one more thing: We don't know the engines "shut down" as you
>>> > put it. As you seem to care a great deal about aircraft safety, why
>>> > not try some accuracy?
>>>
>>> I was merely citing the article which begins with, "Transport
>>> Department investigators are probing the possibility a crossed line
>>> diverted a call to the Boeing 777, interfering with its computers and
>>> shutting down the engines."
>>>
>>> Ergo, that isn't my verdict (for the want of a better term).
>>>
>>> And the article itself is all of ten sentences with no apparent
>>> theorizing by the journalist but more a collage of cites of among
>>> others a Boeing engineer and an incident involving an inadvertent
>>> call transfer into an airplane flight deck.
>>>
>>> Ramapriya
>>
>> The chances of a cell phone affecting a flight computer in this way
>> are so slight as to be negligible- cell phones don't generate that
>> much power (IMHO). Perhaps someone who knows the prelanding checks
>> might tell us if both engines are coupled to the same tank?
>
>
> No, never.
>
>> It so, it is far more likely to be a fuel issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> I believe the engines each feed from a tank in the wing they are
>> attached to. Redundancy required separate fuel supplies, fuel
>> controls, engine controls etc. There are very few items in common.
>> if it was a software issue, it would be interesting to find out
>> why it
>> had not manifested itself in 6 years and 20,000+ hours.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, that's right, it's tank to engine for all takeoffs and landings.
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>

[Phil J]

On Jan 23, 10:33*am, "Al G" > wrote:

> * * if it was a software issue, it would be interesting to find out why it
> had not manifested itself in 6 years and 20,000+ hours.
>
> Al *G

That is usually how it works with software bugs. The ones that are
easy to generate get caught in testing. It's the bugs that require
some really unusual and unlikely combination of inputs that tend to
get through into production code.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Oskar Wagner" > wrote in
:

> Reading here for quite some while I'm kind of amused about how far the
> theories have gone. Furthermore I also noticed a remarkable lack of
> system knowledge leading to funny assumptions and - in your case - to
> funny "nope" and "no, never" statements which are not true in every
> case. For large transports it is a common abnormal handling to switch
> ALL fuel pumps on and OPEN the crossfeed in case of low fuel quantity


Yep.


> (e.g. close to or at final reserve). Furthermore usually a (+) pitch
> limit is present. I'm not really familiar with the twin Boeing systems
> but I'm sure they don't vary too much from MD and Airbus. So a "never"
> regarding both engines fed from the same tank ist not consistent as
> with open crossfeed ANY engine can be fed from ANY tank that contains
> fuel.
>

OK, fair enough,

> This is just to clarify some system behaviour and not issueing a new
> rumour. As a retired pilot with some 5 digit flight hours in large
> transports I will never add any gossip... :-)) but just wait for te
> official outcome. Everything else is useless.

I agree.

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
>>> People who read it and believe anything in it should be disqualified
>>> form voting. Especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and a
>>> habit of embarking on idiotic military adventures.
>>
>> Hmm...oh. The irony. :)
>>
>
>
> Now now, you're making assumptions.

I am? Actually, you're probably right, I am.

But are they incorrect ones?

Andy

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Phil J" > wrote

> That is usually how it works with software bugs. The ones that are
> easy to generate get caught in testing. It's the bugs that require
> some really unusual and unlikely combination of inputs that tend to
> get through into production code.

Also, note that I am not saying that this did happen, but there are always
the "updated" software packages that get added, over the years. One of
those could have contained a new, unanticipated problem.
--
Jim in NC

[Eduardo K.]

In article >,
>
>- Faulty coffee maker shorts cabin electrics.
>

actually... this one is plausible :)

--
Eduardo K. | Some say it's forgive and forget.
http://www.carfun.cl | I say forget about forgiving just accept.
http://ev.nn.cl | And get the hell out of town.
| Minnie Driver, Grosse Point Blank

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Funny, I don't remember seeing a phone in the flight deck.
>>>
>>> I'll have a good ol look around tomorrow.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well, that probably depends on the airline/aircraft, is sure possible to
>> have it installed as an option.
>
> Nah. Nobody dos that on airliners. We have several methods of geting
> messages to/from already, primarily ACARS.
>
>> Several Business aircraft have them, mostly Iridium/Sat phone.
>
>
> I doubt anyone has them n the cockpit, though.
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
Well, cannot say about other aircraft, but all Global Express have a
Iridium/Sat phone in the cockpit, is installed in the aft part of the
center pedestal, it is standard equipment and has a separate number from
the ones in the cabin.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 22, 7:27*am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> Ramapriya

Do you find it interesting that this was not reported in a real
newspaper?

-Robert

[D Ramapriya]

On Jan 24, 2:45 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:27 am, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
> > Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
> > to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> > Ramapriya
>
> Do you find it interesting that this was not reported in a real
> newspaper?
>
> -Robert

Yes, quite - apart from other lightweights like Switched and
Cnet.com.au. But to just have a look at the pic of the moment of
impact - which I don't recall seeing elsewhere - makes it worthwhile
to point your browser Sun-ward :)

Ramapriya

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 23 Jan, 19:29, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * *Bertie the > wrote:
>
> >>> People who read it and believe anything in it should be disqualified
> >>> form voting. Especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and a
> >>> habit of embarking on idiotic military adventures.
>
> >> Hmm...oh. The irony. :)
>
> > Now now, you're making assumptions.
>
> I am? Actually, you're probably right, I am.
>
> But are they incorrect ones?


That particular one, yes. But i'll say no more.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 23 Jan, 22:28, Flydive > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Flydive > wrote :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >>> Funny, I don't remember seeing a phone in the flight deck.
>
> >>> I'll have a good ol look around tomorrow.
>
> >>> Bertie
> >> Well, that probably depends on the airline/aircraft, is sure possible to
> >> have it installed as an option.
>
> > Nah. Nobody dos that on airliners. We have several methods of geting
> > messages to/from already, primarily ACARS.
>
> >> Several Business aircraft have them, mostly Iridium/Sat phone.
>
> > I doubt anyone has them n the cockpit, though.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Well, cannot say about other aircraft, but all Global Express have a
> Iridium/Sat phone in the cockpit, is installed in the aft part of the
> center pedestal, it is standard equipment and has a separate number from
> the ones in the cabin.- Hide quoted text -


Oh, OK, news to me! I stand corrected.

We're stil relying on ACARS.

Stil, a sat phone is hardly gonna get a call from sp[rint.


Bertie

[Phil J]

On Jan 23, 3:08*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> Also, note that I am not saying that this did happen, but there are always
> the "updated" software packages that get added, over the years. *One of
> those could have contained a new, unanticipated problem.
> --
> Jim in NC

Moving steadily off-topic...

Yeah, with computers there is no such thing as a small change. I
don't know how many times in my career I have fixed a bug only to
discover that my fix has caused yet another bug. And these days with
object-oriented code the software is more fragmented, with more
interdependent moving parts, which makes unintended consequences more
likely. I'm not knocking OO code, but I do think it tends to make
programs more complex than the old procedural stuff. And greater
complexity generally makes testing more difficult. Just one geek's
opinion.

Phil

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> Stil, a sat phone is hardly gonna get a call from sp[rint.
>
>
> Bertie


Agree

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
>> I am? Actually, you're probably right, I am.
>>
>> But are they incorrect ones?
>
>
> That particular one, yes. But i'll say no more.

Hmm...Ok.

I think I understand :)

You're a riddle, wrapped inside a mystery, wrapped inside an enigma.

:D

Andy

[Thomas Borchert]

D,

> But to just have a look at the pic of the moment of
> impact - which I don't recall seeing elsewhere
>

Might just be a fake, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article
> >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>>> I am? Actually, you're probably right, I am.
>>>
>>> But are they incorrect ones?
>>
>>
>> That particular one, yes. But i'll say no more.
>
> Hmm...Ok.
>
> I think I understand :)
>
> You're a riddle, wrapped inside a mystery, wrapped inside an enigma.


Also known as a Burrito.

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Also known as a Burrito.

You're Mexican?

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Also known as a Burrito.
>
> You're Mexican?
>

If needs be!

There have been many games of "Where's Bertie" over the years. Often played
by many angry villagers wielding pitchforks and torches. I've been traced
to many many places over the years by some very ****ed off people. Don't
know why..
Anyhow, since some are sti trying to find me ( the guys who are fond of
painting Swastikas on peoples porches ( like this nitwit, one of your
countrymen who has, apparently, decided to invade Hitchin
http://www.boatbanter.com/showthread.php?t=17670)
So I try and keep my distance form them and at the same time poke them with
very sharp sticks.
IOW I've given away as much as i'm going to!

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> IOW I've given away as much as i'm going to!

Fair enough :)

Sure you can trust li'l ole me though? :D

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Ooops, sorry, Dirk Breure's site is here. http://www.neopax.com/dirk%
20bruere.jpg

He's a sort of touchy feely neo-nazi who's set up a small but enthusistic
political party that "just wants the things that everyone wants". He's a
dangerous fukker and the religious affiliation, Asatru, is getting to be
very popular with skinheads in the UK, US and, of course, der Vaterland.
If you feel the need to poke him with a sharp stick, you can find him at
alt.religion.asatru.

Pointing out that Asatru seems to be based on a comic book will be sure to
raise a chorus of howls about how Europe and the US would be better off if
christianity had never come..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> IOW I've given away as much as i'm going to!
>
> Fair enough :)
>
> Sure you can trust li'l ole me though? :D
>

It's not so much trusting individuals as just not letting it get around to
much. If a lot of people know then everyone knows!


BTW, feel free to swastie Djirk if the mood strikes you.

Tell him "Bertie sent me"




Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> It's not so much trusting individuals as just not letting it get around to
> much. If a lot of people know then everyone knows!

Yeah I know. Just pulling your leg.

You must have been busy to have the whole world loving you so much :)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> It's not so much trusting individuals as just not letting it get
>> around to much. If a lot of people know then everyone knows!
>
> Yeah I know. Just pulling your leg.
>
> You must have been busy to have the whole world loving you so much :)
>

Oh yeah. I morph my e-mail addie all the time, but if you look under my
posted name in Google you'll see some fairly mad stuff over the years. The
alt.aviation.safety stuff is probably some of the maddest stuff.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Oh yeah. I morph my e-mail addie all the time, but if you look under my
> posted name in Google you'll see some fairly mad stuff over the years. The
> alt.aviation.safety stuff is probably some of the maddest stuff.

If only I had the time. Some of us have to work for a living :)

Andy

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:27:58 -0800 (PST), D Ramapriya
> wrote:

>Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
>http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece

Having worked with computers (my degree is in CS), networks, and radio
communications, plus being an amateur radion operator I can say: It's
highly improbably that a cell phone would interfere with anything on a
plane even with the new "glass cockpits". There was an ariticle in
one of the aviation mags just recently on this subject. The consensus
was that cell phones could easily be used on commercial flights with
no problems other than the occasioanl lynching.

The frequencies used by cell phones are well removed from any used on
the aircraft. They are also very low power devices. Computers are
far more likely to create problems.

However any electronic device can malfunction and do things it wasn't
supposed to.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>Ramapriya

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:27:58 -0800 (PST), D Ramapriya
> > wrote:
>
>>Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
>>to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
>>http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece
>
> Having worked with computers (my degree is in CS), networks, and radio
> communications, plus being an amateur radion operator I can say: It's
> highly improbably that a cell phone would interfere with anything on a
> plane even with the new "glass cockpits". There was an ariticle in
> one of the aviation mags just recently on this subject. The consensus
> was that cell phones could easily be used on commercial flights with
> no problems other than the occasioanl lynching.
>
> The frequencies used by cell phones are well removed from any used on
> the aircraft. They are also very low power devices. Computers are
> far more likely to create problems.
>
> However any electronic device can malfunction and do things it wasn't
> supposed to.
>

Well, we do get the occasional beep te beep from them in the headsets or
speakers if we have them on, but that's almost always our own phones in the
cockpit.


Bertie