BA 777 crash at Heathrow

"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.

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.

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.

wrote in
:

On Mar 17, 1:11*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:aa884032-60e0-46f8-996b-d201422eca30@e10g2000
prf.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
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.


Well, the pitch attitude probably had little to do with it, more than
likely they were at or near idle with a low FF demand and when they
spooled up to stabilise after flap extension the increased demand caused
the problem. Hard to know zand the report shouldn't be too long coming
out. There has been some scuttlebut to that effect, though. Older
airplanes used bleed air, as well as engine oil and hydraulic heat
exchangers to keep the fuel warm, but the modern ones skipped the belts
and braces bleed air, which is the hottest, of course.


Bertie

Tina wrote in
:

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.



It's not an if. When kerosene gets cold enough it waxes. Both tanks were
exposed to the same temps for many hours. Probably somthing in the region
of -65 C.


Bertie

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

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:33:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Tina wrote in
:

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.



It's not an if. When kerosene gets cold enough it waxes. Both tanks were
exposed to the same temps for many hours. Probably somthing in the region
of -65 C.


Bertie
************************************************** *************************************************

Bertie

Before the Airlines started flying jets the Air Force ran into a fuel
problem in their jets at altitude. Can't remember now if it was ice
xtyls forming in the fuel or waxing as you say but the Air Force
started putting an additive in their fuel that stopped that problem
and the Airlines picked up on it when they started flying jets I was
told.

The basic problem was that the xtyls would form in the fuel and then
pack the filter and stop fuel flow.

Do the Airlines still use the/a additive in their fuel for the high
altitude problem?

Hope you had a good St Paddies day )

Erin go bre

Big John