The 777 crash - another theory

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

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

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

"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

wrote:

- Faulty coffee maker shorts cabin electrics.

Splappy? Is that you?

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

"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

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

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

"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