Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote in
> >
> > The BA crew would have had to ignore EICAS to have got caught out by
> > fuel starvation.
>
> Nope.

Are you saying that there wouldn't have been any low qty or low fuel
pressure EICAS alerts prior to fuel starvation / exhaustion ?

Graham

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> >
>> > The BA crew would have had to ignore EICAS to have got caught out by
>> > fuel starvation.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Are you saying that there wouldn't have been any low qty or low fuel
> pressure EICAS alerts prior to fuel starvation / exhaustion ?
>

Not necesarily,

That'll be £40 fjukktard.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Eeyore > wrote in
> >> >
> >> > The BA crew would have had to ignore EICAS to have got caught out by
> >> > fuel starvation.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Are you saying that there wouldn't have been any low qty or low fuel
> > pressure EICAS alerts prior to fuel starvation / exhaustion ?
>
> Not neccesarily.

Define 'necessarily'.

And fix your spelling checker whilst you're at it.

Graham

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote in
>> >> >
>> >> > The BA crew would have had to ignore EICAS to have got caught
>> >> > out by fuel starvation.
>> >>
>> >> Nope.
>> >
>> > Are you saying that there wouldn't have been any low qty or low
>> > fuel pressure EICAS alerts prior to fuel starvation / exhaustion ?
>>
>> Not neccesarily.
>
> Define 'necessarily'.
>
> And fix your spelling checker whilst you're at it.
>

MMm, on..


Bertie