wrote in
:

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
innews:aa884032-60e0-46f8-996b-d201422eca30@e10g
2000prf.googlegroups.com:

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 tw
o
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
powe
r
loss. *If the plane was at a fairly low fuel level and changed
pit
ch
attitude on approach, slush could have been sucked into the
fuel lines. *Only a small amount of water slush would have been
require
d to
cause a problem. *Post crash, the slush would be gone, and may
eve
n
have passed through the engines just prior to the crash, but
too lat
e
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.


Not really. FF would have been low for a considerable period. FF would
be higher on approahc than in the cruise.

Bertie