British Airways 777 I throught you filled the TANK !!!

[Werner]

I agree.

[chuck]

If it is realised the crew made mistakes then B.A would have mud on their face & that would be something they would try to avoid at all costs, especially now. Interesting.

It wouldn't be any worse than if B.A. kept silent and then it turns out it was the crew's fault. At least now the crew is credited with character to offset any technical flaw.

[chuck]

I bet 5 to 1 the problems were with fuel management system. Other problems can't explain near simultaneous failure of 2 engines without warning to the pilots after successful operation during long flight.

[Werner]

I bet 5 to 1 the problems were with fuel management system. Other problems can't explain near simultaneous failure of 2 engines without warning to the pilots after successful operation during long flight.

The sheer amount of incident-free flight time with this system militates for an external source, possibly human error.

Looking at a close-up of both engines makes it certain to me they were not turning with any power when they hit the ground. There is not even the appearance of FOD damage from dirt, let alone distortion of the compressor housing.

One of the items on the before landing checklist is a switch of the fuel tanks (set tank-to-engine) to be executed at about 5 miles before landing. This timing fits pretty well with the list of events.

[bismarck builder]

guys
i few local witneses, taxi drivers who spend all day working out of heathrow so know what is normal and what is not did report hearing the scream of the engines of this 777.
other witneses report that the aircraft made a tight turn almost 90 degrees to get into a landing approach to do this they would of had to annouce a mayday .
this is why he was about 20 minutes early.
the passengers say they knew nothing of any emergency no announcement was made.
gary

[JPH]

If it is realised the crew made mistakes then B.A would have mud on their face & that would be something they would try to avoid at all costs, especially now. Interesting.

It wouldn't be any worse than if B.A. kept silent and then it turns out it was the crew's fault. At least now the crew is credited with character to offset any technical flaw.

Hmmmm, along with many other snenario's playing out, we are neither here nor there.

Until such time as the findings are finalised & presented all we do is speculate wildly on the incident & nothing more

[Werner]

Computer system suspected in Heathrow 777 crash
Mechanical failure 'unthinkable'
By Lester Haines
Published Monday 21st January 2008 11:35 GMT

Experts have suggested that the simultaneous failure of both engines of the BA 777 which last week crash-landed at Heathrow must have been caused by a computer glitch, the Times reports.

BA038 lost power when it was about two miles from the airport's south runway. The pilot glided the aircraft to a belly-flop short of the tarmac, and the 136 passengers and 16 crew escaped without serious injury.

There has been speculation that the incident was provoked by the aircraft striking a flock of geese, but the idea that bird strike could knock out both engines has been dismissed as "unthinkable".

Accordingly, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), has said in its initial report that it would focus on "the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation", while examining all possible causes.

The Boeing 777's computer system has in the past caused a few scares. In 2005, it decided to suddenly reduce a Malaysia Airlines aircraft's speed from 270 knots to 158 knots and put it into a 3,000ft climb. The pilot prevented a disasterous stall by turning off the autopilot and pushing the nose down. Over the Atlantic last year, another aircraft was suddenly thrown to the right by the computer, again obliging the pilot to disengage the autopilot.

[chuck]

Or a glitch in the computerized fuel management system.

[Werner]

Well, the official word is Chuck is right (so far). There was fuel, and the engines had some power but didn't respond to additional demand for power.

The US FAA is concerned that certain fuel management sensors on GE90 (not Rolls-Royce so far) engines are susceptible to icing and other temperature effects. The plane in question had just spent 12 hours at -70C and below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7208126.stm

In any event, the current hypothesis would require an unusual amount of water to have been in the fuel added in Beijing.

[JPH]

Here is some further info................

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... den-1.html

[Werner]

First two bullets on the list: ice in the fuel and contaminated fuel.

[graham]

Thanks JPH for the link, my bett is the old/new software + fuel contiamation caused some combination of events that wasn't able to be predicted by the software testing/desiginers.
We are not yet total master of techology the last .0001% is possiably unreachable (or spell cherkers either ) I suspect that we will have to live with results.

Graham Murdoch

[bismarck builder]

hi guys
if anyone is interested the 777 has had the vertical tail removed,i did here that the wreck is going to raf benson by road not sure how true this is as the roads going to benson are rubbish,also why whats at benson?
gary