BA 777 crash at Heathrow

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?

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

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

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/htm...30291_apbritai...

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/htm...rld/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

"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?

"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

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/htm...rld/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...

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/htm...rld/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

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/htm...rld/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.