The 777 crash - another theory

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

Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.




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

It's only a matter of hours before they connect the crash to Global Warming
and George Bush.


The Sun will probably have it tied into "Diana´s murder" and Maddie´s
kidnapping by the end of the week.


Bertie

LWG wrote:
It's only a matter of hours before they connect the crash to Global Warming
and George Bush.


Its obvious!! jeez man, get a clue.


truth be told...Global warming has ruined my psychic abilities.

And its because of George Bush that I have dingey whites.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

On Jan 23, 12:44 am, Jules
wrote:
Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.


I confess to getting worn to a frazzle about such matters years ago
until it dawned that unless I'm being attacked over the truth, it
doesn't matter at all. Ditto over the past few days too. If people get
worked up and irksome, howsoever warranted or otherwise, over
inaccurately used words and vent diatribe, too bad. But the seriously
good side-effect of it all is that I think my conveyancing may
actually be improving all the time

Ramapriya

It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
Perhaps they are lunatics?

The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane. On 747-400 this
can not be initiated from the ground. Can it be on the 777? Tomorrow I
may phone a friend of mine and ask. I can't imagine what actually
happened???? Can maintenance call up the plnane and access the ships
systems? Could it be a one in a million chance of it happening by
accident? Did someone activate their cellphone and call and say, "Honey
wel will be landing soon."???

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???



D Ramapriya wrote:
On Jan 23, 12:44 am, Jules
wrote:

Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.



I confess to getting worn to a frazzle about such matters years ago
until it dawned that unless I'm being attacked over the truth, it
doesn't matter at all. Ditto over the past few days too. If people get
worked up and irksome, howsoever warranted or otherwise, over
inaccurately used words and vent diatribe, too bad. But the seriously
good side-effect of it all is that I think my conveyancing may
actually be improving all the time

Ramapriya

I don't see anything wrong with his posting that link.

If your excuse is, 'his other sins, on other occasions', then you owe
him an apology.

But the article post was appreciated my me, and perhaps, me alone

Which Airbus' do you fly?






Airbus wrote:

In article ,
says...


Don't take it personal, it is sop in this newsgroup to pick away at
people; like crows, with a roadside carcass.




It is SOP to de-mask and challenge lunabics who try to come across as
exferts, when there are knowledgeable people present and ready to answer.
Mxsmanic is the world champion, but the present contributor is no slounch in
the matter.

Perhaps you didn't see his prebious post, in which he suggested the BA crew
should not have executed an emergency evacuation after a crash landing in a
field. He felt it would have been smarter to wait for the air stairs to
arrive and should these not easily get across the drainage ditches, the
best solution would have been ladders, and only after these proved to be
"too short" would deployment of the slides have been advisable.

He proffered ridicule for the brew for having quickly adopted this
solution, when he could have simply asked (because he doesn't know) whether
this was the best choice.

No picking away at carcasses for people who ask questions for things they
don't know about . . .

Jules wrote:


Which Airbus' do you fly?


What I also meant to ask is...

and can any data links or phone patchs be ground initiated?

On Jan 22, 9:45*pm, Jules
wrote:
It is certainly significant if BA says they will be looking into it.
Perhaps they are lunatics?

The article was vague but it sounds like the lady, through whatever
bumbling got put through on a phone patch to the plane.

That incident happened ten weeks ago to a different 777. There is no
mention whatsoever that it happened again to this flight. All they
are really saying is this happened ten weeks ago, maybe it happened
again. I think the chances are pretty slim. I can buy a pilot having
his cellphone on when he is waiting on a taxi-way for takeoff
clearance. But why would a pilot have a cellphone on during final
approach after a very long over-ocean flight?

Phil

In article
,
says...


Here's an intriguing take on what might have caused the 777's engine
to shut down. A dramatic pic of the moment of impact included...
http://thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article711639.ece

Ramapriya

After publishing this I think The Sun will have to forgo the right to
publish on April 1st! And to think they missed the opportunity to posit
that it was Diana calling - from Paris - proof she is still alive!!