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/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.- 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.