The 777 crash - another theory

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

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 lunatics who try to come across as
experts, when there are knowledgeable people present and ready to answer.
Mxsmanic is the world champion, but the present contributor is no slouch in
the matter.

Perhaps you didn't see his previous 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 crew 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 . . .

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 . . .

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

D Ramapriya wrote in news:73797348-6fbd-4036-879e-
:

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


God, what was it like before?


BTW, who's irked? Someone has waaay to high an opinion of his opinion.




Bertie

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

I don't know if "The Sun" is the best source of aviation news -- but IMHO
any poster that can use "myopic", "ergo", and "conveyancing" in a single
thread has carried the day...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jules wrote in news:yAslj.12132
:

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




Who's picking away at anyone? It's not his idea, he said so.


Bertie

D Ramapriya wrote in news:e79540ae-7388-42ab-a863-
:

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.


Funny, I don't remember seeing a phone in the flight deck.

I'll have a good ol look around tomorrow.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Funny, I don't remember seeing a phone in the flight deck.

I'll have a good ol look around tomorrow.


Bertie

Well, that probably depends on the airline/aircraft, is sure possible to
have it installed as an option.
Several Business aircraft have them, mostly Iridium/Sat phone.