Looks like he landed short of the runway for some reason. Some of the pictures show the gear ripped out from under it.

Really trashed it, too. Wonder how you do that in a triple 7? Microburst?

I think the saying goes "To really foul up you need a computer..."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article700633.ece

According to the article, there was some sort of major computer failure or problem, on short-short final. Apparently throttled back the engines to idle and pitched the nose up at the same time, or something like that.

Holy CRAP I hope that is not true about the computers. He'd have had to have a complete failure of the EEC's (electronic engine controls) in all three modes, normal, hard and soft alternate,for the engines to idle back.

Then at the same time he'd have to had the Primary flight control computers fail in all three modes as well Primary, Secondary and direct mode failures simultaneously. A complete failure of the PFCS still leaves you with 4 ACE's which all have separate power sources from each other including PMG back ups which will run flight control power as long as the engines are rotating. If the PFC's fail then somehow all four ACES fail you've still got two roll control spoilers that are mechanically hooked up with cables, mechanical pitch trim and differential thurst for yaw.

I am guessing that if in fact this is what happened that we will find that he had some kind of a major electronics failure, something like a fire in the E&E bay that was melting stuff at a rapid rate that they weren't aware of. Some kind of rapid onset catastrophic failure.

An AD came out on the 777 about two months ago with regards to ALWAYS using at least two power sources when on the ground. IE two power cords plugged in or if only one power cord is available run the APU in conjunction with a power cord due to a component problem in the ELMS (electrical load management system). Apparently if the ELMS system has only one power source hooked up it will shift power back and forth between different subsystems and cause a relay failure which has caused a major fire in a 777 while on the ground.

Time will tell but this is getting VERY interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:


Holy CRAP I hope that is not true about the computers. He'd have had to have a complete failure of the EEC's (electronic engine controls) in all three modes, normal, hard and soft alternate,for the engines to idle back.

Then at the same time he'd have to had the Primary flight control computers fail in all three modes as well Primary, Secondary and direct mode failures simultaneously. A complete failure of the PFCS still leaves you with 4 ACE's which all have separate power sources from each other including PMG back ups which will run flight control power as long as the engines are rotating. If the PFC's fail then somehow all four ACES fail you've still got two roll control spoilers that are mechanically hooked up with cables, mechanical pitch trim and differential thurst for yaw.

I am guessing that if in fact this is what happened that we will find that he had some kind of a major electronics failure, something like a fire in the E&E bay that was melting stuff at a rapid rate that they weren't aware of. Some kind of rapid onset catastrophic failure.

An AD came out on the 777 about two months ago with regards to ALWAYS using at least two power sources when on the ground. IE two power cords plugged in or if only one power cord is available run the APU in conjunction with a power cord due to a component problem in the ELMS (electrical load management system). Apparently if the ELMS system has only one power source hooked up it will shift power back and forth between different subsystems and cause a relay failure which has caused a major fire in a 777 while on the ground.

Time will tell but this is getting VERY interesting.

No mention made of weather but could a lightning strike have caused this? Eons ago we had CV880 - I know, ancient history - hit by lightning an total loss of everything electrical and elctronic. Pilot[s] were able to still fly and the CJ-805's kept turning but the pucker factor was very, very high!

I've never trusted fly-by-wire on civilian aircraft ever since the test model of the A320 with the chief Aribus test pilot at the controls took over from him and flew itself into the trees.

The F-16 is fly-by-wire. It has three computers. It also has an ejection seat.

Notably, the 777 or any Airbus does not.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but hydraulics work and have worked for well over fifty years, so why change it into something that oftentimes completely fails...computers. It's "Be the latest kid on your block to have the new iPhone" mentality. Modernity for the sake of modernity. Nothing else.

At least the goddamned control system didn't take a crap along with the engine control system. The guy did a great job rolling it on and not taking out the approach lights. That would have meant an instant fireball

I just revised my opinion of Boeing aircraft. They should ground every triple 7 flying until the glitch has been found.

surestrike, sounds like you're triple 7 qualified. Ground 'em?

I get most reports here in our G'ment's "crash comic", but ther're slow getting finalised.

'Instance with the French fella in the Airbus, as I remember, he "fiddled" with the system to get it to do a low and slow flypast with the gear UP. (normally with the power back the gear wants to be down or vice versa).

So even a commentator on news tv counted the seconds needed to spool up but the trees got there first.

But anyway here's one for me please.
Just a few days ago a Qantas Boeing lost all electrical power (because a drip tray leaked water into the power system), the back-up was to last only about 30to60 minutes or so, and all comentators reckoned the plane would have crashed if it was further out over the sea.

How can this be? What happened to the little propeller that used to pop out into the slipstream? Why wouldn't there be more of the redundancy that airliners boast about?

Anyway re the original topic, it's normal the crew are hailed as heros. . . until the investagation anyway. Lets hope they did nothing wrong this time.

Weather at EGLL at the time of the accident.

EGLL 171350Z 22015KT 9999 FEW021 12/09 Q0995 TEMPO 24018G28KT SHRA BKN015CB
EGLL 171320Z 22016KT 9999 BKN014 BKN020 11/09 Q0996 TEMPO 24020G32KT 6000 SHRA BKN015CB
EGLL 171250Z 20013KT 9999 BKN008 10/08 Q0996 BECMG 24018G28KT SCT012 BKN020
EGLL 171220Z 21014KT 180V240 9999 SCT008 BKN010 09/08 Q0997 TEMPO 21018G28KT 4000 RADZ BKN008
EGLL 171150Z 20014KT 170V240 9999 FEW006 SCT010 09/08 Q0997
EGLL 171120Z 19017KT 160V230 5000 DZ BKN006 OVC010 09/07 Q0998 TEMPO 19020G30KT 4000
EGLL 171050Z 19017KT 6000 DZ BKN007 09/07 Q0999 TEMPO 19020G30KT


Doesn't appear that there was any lightening in the area at the time. Looks like typical London winter weather. Cold and deary.

Jet,

I have been on the 777 for 7 years 6 of which I've been an instructor and check airmen on the bird.

I've taken two really good lightening strikes one on about a 3 mile final at KSFO and I mean one of those duck and pucker strikes that really wakes you up. IN either case there wasn't even a blink in the electronic systems or displays.

That ELMS fire that happened in EGLL several months ago plus this IF IT IS an accurate reporting of the facts sure would demand a fleet wide grounding no doubt about it.

But as far as hydraulic flight control system failures go I've got one word DC-10 . They can fail too!

I am still not sure that we had a EEC/PFC failure here. Nor is anyone else but IF that was the case they are going to have to ground the fleet.

A couple of thins that struck me right away about the 777 when I checked out on it. There is NO mechanical back up between the throttles and the engines. The throttles when moved give the EEC's a signal and the engines respond through the EEC which are computer in the place of mechanical fuel control units. There is no cable or mechanical linkage to the engines from the throttles! That kinda like freaked me out when I first saw it!

If the electrical flight controls fail and yes they are multiple redundant but I'm a pilot and I don't care how many redundancies you have, shit happens! In any case if the the electronic flight controls fail you've got number 9&11 roll control spoilers that are a mechanical hook up, you've got pitch trim and engines left for yaw control. It can be flown but it ain't pretty!

I know a guy who punched out of one of the first F-18's with a triple redundant hydraulic flight control system. Mac Donald Douglas routed all three hydraulic lines through one tube right next to the fan section of the engine. Guess what happened? You'd think they'd learn from the DC-10!

They rerouted the lines on the F-18.


JAL,

The A-320 crash at Paris was 100% pilot error. I am typed in the A-320 as well and that wreck was explained in training.

The Auto Thrust System (ATS) has a blended mode which allows the airplane to land when the ATS is on. Obviously if the ATS tried to maintain the commanded speed it would never allow the airplane to land.

So at a certain altitude AGL the ATS system goes from a speed command mode into a blended landing mode where it will hold the last power setting it was using until it commands idle for the landing flare. But the ATS is disconnected for all intensive purposes, if you want power you have to push the throttles into the TOGA detent. Pitching the airplane up ain't going to give you increased thrust like it will in normal ATS mode.

The pilot on that day was thinking he was showing off the ATS system and thought that ATS would maintain his airspeed in the pass and then give him throttle when he pitched up at the end of the runway. WRONG he was below the ATS engagement altitude. He didn't know it, the airplane doesn't tell you that with a warning because it thinks you want to land. By the time he figured it out he was too late, he did manually push the throttle up but we all know the rest of that story!

If he'd simply disconnected the ATS system by pushing the disconnect buttons on the throttles and flown the airplane with manual throttles there would have been no issues.

As a side note I've had the ATS on the A-320 screw me big time several times on windy days at low altitude. I NEVER used the auto throttles on a bus on Approach EVER again I always flew the throttles manually below about 1500 feet.

If I had to guess right now I wouldn't be thinking EEC failure.

The simple things that come to mind are.....

Fuel contamination, dual bird strike or fuel starvation.

All that any of us know for a fact is that they landed short.

There was early speculation that the power loss was because the plane had simply run out of fuel, but BA quickly countered this saying it had more than the required minimum left at the end of the trip. Early reports from the crash site mention a lot of fuel on the ground around the wreck if that counts for anything?

Bird strike is another consideration...Would there normally be any tell tale signs if this was the case or are the birds pretty much vapourised? I seem to recall a video on Youtube of a navy guy getting sucked into a jet engine on a carrier and surviving, which is pretty amazing...

With regards to this particular crash, it seems the at the start of the emergency, the plane was at about 600 feet and about 25 seconds from landing.

There was talk of the co-pilot deliberately trading height for speed to get the plane over a large residential area and major road and "into" the airport...

Not sure if this was brilliant flying or just about his only course of action?

Amazingly some of the passengers didn't realize the extent of the emergency until the slides were deployed...A couple who were interviewed thought it was just a bit of a rough landing, but nothing more!

Regards,

Pete

quote:

I know a guy who punched out of one of the first F-18's with a triple redundant hydraulic flight control system. Mac Donald Douglas routed all three hydraulic lines through one tube right next to the fan section of the engine. Guess what happened? You'd think they'd learn from the DC-10!

It could have been bird strikes. There are often birds on and around EGLL. We'll just have to wait and see. I'm just thankful he made the grass. If this had happened thirty seconds sooner, ...well, I don't want to go there. Bad luck.


Perhaps I should have said a properly designed hydraulic system. The DC-10's hydraulics have killed a lot of people. Three fatal crashes come to mind, all as a direct or indirect hydraulic system failure... the Turkish Air Lines crash in Europe when the baggage door blew out and took the floor out, which took the hydraulics out, the AA O'Hare engine loss with the engine coming off and back over the wing took out the left wing hydraulics and there were insufficient check valves to prevent the LED's and flaps from retracting, causing the airplane to roll over, and the Souix City crash, where all three systems were closely routed through the #2 engine that suffered catastrosphic turbine failure.

I often flew the Herc over Souix City on the way from ORD to SFO and got several good looks at that crash site.

The DC-10 was being called the McDonnel Douglas Death Tube for a long time there.

Like I said, call me old fashioned, but I like cables traveling from my throttle quadrant to my engines. I just don't trust all those stray electrons. Yeah, cables can break, but they usually don't if they're properly inspected. How can you inspect an electron?

quote:

How can this be? What happened to the little propeller that used to pop out into the slipstream? Why wouldn't there be more of the redundancy that airliners boast about?

The RAT...ram air turbine. Some aircraft had them and some do not. The 747 didn't. The DC-9 did. Maybe someone else knows of other aircraft so equipped. Good idea, but not high tech enough for today's designers, as far as I know.

In regards to hydraulics systems, a system that I am astounded that no one has would simply be a small spoiler on the top of each wing and a small back-up electric trim system. Run everything from a small joystick or even rocker switch. Preflight is just depressing the switch and visually making sure the spoilers pop up when required.

It would not be a perfect system but cheap and pretty foolproof, and provide directional and pitch control should everything else disappear on you.

The Herc I flew, the L 382 G&H civilian models, had three hydraulic systems, but only two powered the controls. The third operated from a three phase electric aux pump near the ramp and door and would power the brakes, the nosewheel extension, and the ramp and door. The utility system powered one half of each control servo and the main powered everything else, gear extension, primary brakes, nosewheel steering and half the control system.

If you lost the two primary systems, all you had left was engines and trim. With practice, and Lockheed worked this procedure out unofficially in the sim at Marietta, you could fly and land the aircraft on engines alone, as long as all four were operating. Inboard controlled the pitch and outboard the turns. I used to practice shooting ILS's into SFO using just engines and trim from top of descent to flare. Never quite had the stones to actually land it, but I could have. It was kinda neat. Never would have found the procedure in the ops specs, though, This was just among us birdmen.

My money is fuel starvation. Lack of a fire pretty much guarentees it. Those fire trucks had no warning before the event so there wuold have been plenty of opportunity for fire. I would bet those wings hold a fair amount of fuel when empty to the engines (like my motorcycle that dies with 1/2 gallon of fuel in the tank). That would account for the spillage after the wing was opened up. This was the tail end of a long haul during a time of expensive fuel.

Regulations and good operating practices require fuel to alternate plus 45 minutes, plus a small percentage of the total enroute fuel. That's FAA regs, as I recall. I doubt if the Brits are much different.

He could have cut it short, but I think it's a stretch to assume that he would be shooting an approach without notifying ATC that he was down to emergency minimum fuel. Normal procedure is to request immediate priority. I know that's how almost every pilot I know would do it. The one exception is a jerk named Ken Gaasch, who was such a company man that he tried to stretch his fuel going into Wright Pat one day and had #4 quit when he cleared the runway. And I don't mind naming him in public. He deserves it for almost killing a crew.

But it does happen.

Jet,

10% of Total time + most distant alternate hold at 1500' for 30 mins.

Ring any bells.

In know you know all this stuff I am only mentioning it for the members who aren't familiar with the fuel requirements on these type operations.

We are allowed on an flag dispatch. one of the following fuel scenarios depending on weather and weight and ETOPS requirements,

1. A standard 10% dispatch as described above.

2. A 10% redispatch which either allows a double 10% carry or a 10% carry to redispatch point then domestic reserves after the redispatch point if the weather is good at the destination.

3. A 10% of class two only dispacth

4. A 5% total time dispatch

5. A 5% of class two dispatch

6. A 2 hour exemption to several named airports which are generally good weather. All we have to do is carry two extra hours of fuel Honolulu and Bermuda are examples of this exemption.

7 A 6 hour exemption. If the international flight is less than 6 hours and the weather is good we can carry domestic reserves only.

But almost always on these long range flights the ETOPS fuel requirements are going to overlap the destination and alternate requirements on a twin engine airplane anyway.

With ETOPS fuel being what it was I really can't fathom that these boys were actually out of gas.

And before anyone jumps me about PEK to LHR not needing ETOPS fuel because it isn't over water remeber that ETOPS has nothing to do with over water it is required for a twin anytime you are more than 60 minutes from a suitable airport whether over land or water.

I'm guessing these boys were routed trans polar on that leg.

As far as electronic flight control systems failures I believe that the statistics show that hydraulic and cable controls have a much higher rate of failure than electronic flight controls. On commercial aircraft. The primary reason airplanes are all going to electronic flight controls is the massive weight savings it allows. That and the flight envelope protections that electronic flight control system can offer.


Mark,

You wrote,

"In regards to hydraulics systems, a system that I am astounded that no one has would simply be a small spoiler on the top of each wing and a small back-up electric trim system."

From my post above,

In any case if the the electronic flight controls fail you've got number 9&11 roll control spoilers that are a mechanical hook up, you've got pitch trim and engines left for yaw control. It can be flown but it ain't pretty!

The number 9 & 11 spoilers are controlled through the yoke via a cable. The alternate pitch trim can be either hydraulic or electric. Depending on the situation and the engine provide yaw.

So the back up system you suggest already exists without the need for a separate control device.

The airbus had something similar but my memory isn't all that clear on exactly how it worked.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:

quote:

I know a guy who punched out of one of the first F-18's with a triple redundant hydraulic flight control system. Mac Donald Douglas routed all three hydraulic lines through one tube right next to the fan section of the engine. Guess what happened? You'd think they'd learn from the DC-10!

It could have been bird strikes. There are often birds on and around EGLL. We'll just have to wait and see. I'm just thankful he made the grass. If this had happened thirty seconds sooner, ...well, I don't want to go there. Bad luck.


Perhaps I should have said a properly designed hydraulic system. The DC-10's hydraulics have killed a lot of people. Three fatal crashes come to mind, all as a direct or indirect hydraulic system failure... the Turkish Air Lines crash in Europe when the baggage door blew out and took the floor out, which took the hydraulics out, the AA O'Hare engine loss with the engine coming off and back over the wing took out the left wing hydraulics and there were insufficient check valves to prevent the LED's and flaps from retracting, causing the airplane to roll over, and the Souix City crash, where all three systems were closely routed through the #2 engine that suffered catastrosphic turbine failure.

I often flew the Herc over Souix City on the way from ORD to SFO and got several good looks at that crash site.

The DC-10 was being called the McDonnel Douglas Death Tube for a long time there.

Like I said, call me old fashioned, but I like cables traveling from my throttle quadrant to my engines. I just don't trust all those stray electrons. Yeah, cables can break, but they usually don't if they're properly inspected. How can you inspect an electron?

quote:

How can this be? What happened to the little propeller that used to pop out into the slipstream? Why wouldn't there be more of the redundancy that airliners boast about?

The RAT...ram air turbine. Some aircraft had them and some do not. The 747 didn't. The DC-9 did. Maybe someone else knows of other aircraft so equipped. Good idea, but not high tech enough for today's designers, as far as I know.

I wanted to wait and check to make sure but just confirmed - our B777's do indeed have RAT - deployed from the FH10 overhead panel, located just to the right of the APU Electrical panel. And again I'm not 100% sure but I think any A/C that is ETOPS certified must have RAT - anyone know for sure?
Still want to know exactly what happened here - think we ever will?

All 777's have a RAT. It can be manually deployed but it will auto deploy when it senses the loss of both AC transfer buses in flight.

The RAT provides essential electrical power and hydraulic power for the flight controls with the priority being flight controls then electricity.


I was talking to some guys at work today who said that the BA aircraft had 20 approximately 20,000lbs of fuel remaining at the time of the accident.

That is good for nearly 2 hours of flight at light weight.

Trapper I'm not sure either but I think you can certify ETOPS with no RAT. I believe that the 737-800 is ETOPS certified without one. But I could be wrong.

Funny, when ever my PC in work has a major catastrophic failure like that, the first thing the Tech Supports guys check is whether i spilled tea on the keyboard......

I am having a mental picture here.

Of me calling on a Satcom link to get my misbehaving Flight Management Computer fixed in flight.

In a thick Hinduasti accent..

"Hellooo my namm izzz Judy Now leet me assk you few quezthionz, did you dropp your FMC? Did you spill a beverage on it? Have you pushed the buttons to hard?

Yeah, surestrike...bells rung. Damn, it's been a long time. One would think I'd remember that. One also might think I'd remember a few other things, too, like where I put my car keys...

I never was spooled up on ETOPS. Always flew four-engined aircraft, except for my GA days, with the DC-3, PBY and the light stuff. I do get a little tense when I'm sitting in an A330 three hours out of AMS, though. Lose one on a 747 and you have a trimotor. Lose one on a 767 or A330 and you have a unimotor. That north Atlantic is a truly nasty place. There's always Keflavik, if it ain't snowin' & blowin'. I always pucker up a bit on those ETOPS legs. But, I'm old fashioned. I'm also alive.

That's interesting about the 20,000 lb. report. That's about thirty minutes in a Q-powered 747-200 down low. 777's are something else. I sat in the sim one time at United and drooled, but that's as close as I've ever been to one, other than riding in the back.

And, yeah, I understand why the electronics. Lighter weight converts to more payload and fuel and more efficient engines...all help to pay the bills. But the jury's still out, particularly since LHR. Now, there's all this hullabaloo in the press about the 787's computers being vulnerable to hackers. What's that about? Does the FMS have Internet access? If it's possible to hack it, you know someone will. That's chilling. They've hacked the FBI. Why not a 787?

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
I am having a mental picture here.

Of me calling on a Satcom link to get my misbehaving Flight Management Computer fixed in flight.

In a thick Hinduasti accent..

"Hellooo my namm izzz Judy Now leet me assk you few quezthionz, did you dropp your FMC? Did you spill a beverage on it? Have you pushed the buttons to hard?

quote:

Trapper I'm not sure either but I think you can certify ETOPS with no RAT. I believe that the 737-800 is ETOPS certified without one. But I could be wrong.

The 737-800 like the original has cable operated hydraulically assisted flight controls, therefore manual reversion is available in the event of complete hydraulic failure (at least for ailerons and elevators if I recall).

Every heavy commercial transport twin engine aircraft (newer generation)I'm aware of has a RAT in one form or another. ie : 777, 767, A320, A330 .......

Jetdrv et al:
You do know of course that the acronym 'ETOPS' is shorthand for "Engines turning or passengers swimming?"

E.T.O.P.S.
Entre's. to. our. pacific. sharks...

Jet as far as hacking the FMC or electronic flight controls well I just don't know about that.

All I can say is.

Ohhhh chit I hope not!!

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
Still want to know exactly what happened here - think we ever will?

Hopefully with all these electric systems they have a good diagnostic program, and with the wreck in such good condition we should hear something in a few months.

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
Jetdrv et al:
You do know of course that the acronym 'ETOPS' is shorthand for "Engines turning or passengers swimming?"

Good 'un! I've been away too long. Never heard that one.

As far as twins are concerned, one night I was headed north out of Bogota with a load of roses and heard an AA 757 diverting into Barranquilla after he lost one. That place is truly bandidoville. I always wondered how the passengers liked the place if they had to go to the hotel. Wonder how many got robbed before they made it to dinner...

A 747 would have just pressed on. I like 4 engined airplanes.

More from LHR...

http://aviation-safety.net/news/newsitem.php?id=1972

Since it had fuel.. I withdraw my bet on fuel starvation and move the money to bad Chinese fuel.

they will find the normal suppliers uncle had some old fuel available and was willing to sell at a lower price... yada yada yada...
same story as Thomas the Tank engines lead paint.

Morale... don't fly from China, don't suck on there toys, and don't ever eat there shrimp.

I've ridden BA more than any other airline by far, and their crews are usually first rate. Now stories are surfacing about no evacuation order being given from the cockpit. It's easy to sit in one's comfortable desk chair and criticize the crew for no evac warning. Don't know what I'd have done in the same situation after suddenly finding myself crunched at the end of the runway. Whatever the case, thankfully everyone got out safely and there was no post impact fire.

They were changing there shorts

quote:

I've ridden BA more than any other airline by far, and their crews are usually first rate. Now stories are surfacing about no evacuation order being given from the cockpit.

My company's FA's don't need a verbal from the cockpit. I am not familiar with birdseeds procedures.

quote:

Since it had fuel.. I withdraw my bet on fuel starvation and move the money to bad Chinese fuel.

If they were polar ETOPS the fuel would have been analyzed. Bejing has hundreds of widebodies on the ramp at any given moment.

quote:

That's interesting about the 20,000 lb. report. That's about thirty minutes in a Q-powered 747-200 down low. 777's are something else.

I've seen fuel flows in the 12000 lbs/hr. range at FL 400/ mach .84 cruise flight on our 777's. We have the GE90/94's.
It is an incredible airplane, the 787 will be one better.

U.K. Zeros In On Fuel System In 777 Crash

Jan 25, 2008

By Guy Norris/Aviation Daily

U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch inspectors are examining the fuel system of the British Airways Boeing 777-200ER which crash-landed at London Heathrow Airport last week after updating its preliminary findings to say that both engines did briefly produce some thrust during the approach.

The AAIB, which initially indicated that the 777's Rolls-Royce Trent 895 engines failed to respond to an auto-throttle command, now says both engines spooled up when commanded but that the thrust levels soon reduced. The number two (right) engine reduced after about three seconds, while the number one engine power reduced after about eight seconds. The findings appear to be consistent with post-crash photographs that indicate considerably more fan damage to the number one engine than the number two engine, which appears relatively intact. The fan damage indicates the number one engine was running at some power on impact.

Investigators say that "all possible scenarios that could explain the thrust reduction and continued lack of response to throttle-lever inputs are being examined," and adds that flight data recorder information indicates normal performance from both engine control commands and the auto-throttle.

According to the British Airways 777 technical manual the autothrottle is controlled by the thrust management function, which operates the autothrottle in response to flight crew mode control panel inputs or to automatic flight management computer (FMC) commands. Thrust management calculates reference thrust limits and thrust settings, or follows FMC thrust settings as well as commands the thrust levers themselves. The system is also designed to sense and transmit autothrottle failures and commands thrust equalization through the engine electronic controls. The thrust levers can also, of course, be set manually by the crew.

Sources close to the investigation also tell The DAILY that British Airways engineers have been collecting fuel samples from every flight emanating from China. The sample collection, plus comments from the AAIB indicating the aircraft had "adequate" fuel remaining on board at the time of the crash, is believed to point toward suspicions of a heavier-than-fuel contaminant being present. Theories propounded by crew include the possible presence of water in the tanks that, having become frozen during the intense cold-soak period of the flight, partially melted and formed a slush that could have partially blocked the fuel lines.

Sources also tell The DAILY that upper air temperatures over Russia and northern Europe were extremely cold on the day of the accident. Information from other crews coming from Asia on Jan. 17 encountered extremely low temperatures in the -70 to -75 degrees C. range, resulting in fuel temperatures dipping into the -40s. European upper air temperatures also indicate the last 6.5 hours of the inbound China flight would have been flown at an outside air temperature of -60 deg. C. or lower. Although this would have resulted in fuel temperatures on approach in the -35 degrees C range, this would not normally constitute a problem unless, potentially, contaminants were present.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
They were changing there shorts

Or trying to pull the sheepskins out of their cracks...

So how much water can you add to jet fuel before the engines can't function? It looks to me like the Chinese are adding water to "extend" the fuel, much like I added water to extend my Dad's scotch back in high school (what... he still had 1/2 a bottle). They had the formula pretty good...until this plane encountered exceptional cold temps.

New Approach lights being installed at LHR:



Don

That's a good 'un. Somebody sent that to me in an email but I couldn't figger out how to post it. Cool.