The 777 crash - another theory

On Jan 22, 5:33*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?

Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?



Bertie

Bertie,

Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?


Hmm, what am I missing here!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Bertie,

Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?


Hmm, what am I missing here!


Different thread, same character.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On Jan 22, 5:33 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?

Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?





Hey, comon, cut the guy some slack. Here he's come up with a perfectly
plausable solution, and you guys can't accept it.
Here they were on a short final, the phone rings, they hit 'pause' and take
the call - simple - hell, Mxmoron even missed it!!

"ManhattanMan" wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On Jan 22, 5:33 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?

Leave him alone, he just forgot his question mark?





Hey, comon, cut the guy some slack. Here he's come up with a
perfectly plausable solution, and you guys can't accept it.


I can accept it, that isn't the issue.


Bertie

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

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

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
...
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

I believe the engines each feed from a tank in the wing they are
attached to. Redundancy required separate fuel supplies, fuel controls,
engine controls etc. There are very few items in common.
if it was a software issue, it would be interesting to find out why it
had not manifested itself in 6 years and 20,000+ hours.



Al G

"Al G" wrote in
:


"WingFlaps" wrote in message
news:b9b83f65-f3b4-4e65-86d4-8fe48425c829
@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
.. 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?


No, never.

It so, it is far more likely to be a fuel issue.

Cheers

I believe the engines each feed from a tank in the wing they are
attached to. Redundancy required separate fuel supplies, fuel
controls, engine controls etc. There are very few items in common.
if it was a software issue, it would be interesting to find out
why it
had not manifested itself in 6 years and 20,000+ hours.



Yeah, that's right, it's tank to engine for all takeoffs and landings.

Bertie

On Jan 23, 10:33*am, "Al G" wrote:

* * if it was a software issue, it would be interesting to find out why it
had not manifested itself in 6 years and 20,000+ hours.

Al *G

That is usually how it works with software bugs. The ones that are
easy to generate get caught in testing. It's the bugs that require
some really unusual and unlikely combination of inputs that tend to
get through into production code.

Phil