BA038 (B777) Thread
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It hasn't yet occured to anyone to ask why someone would take redundancy from a well paid job at age 45, a year after being involved in a major incident, with causes as yet unreported. I haven't read much of the thread, so I'm assuming the causes are unknown.
Must also have a severe effect on pension, so why do it?
Other forces at work?
I'll let you all get back to discussing more important stuff, like firemen spraying aeroplanes with water.
Bizzare old place, pprune, unless it's me.
Must also have a severe effect on pension, so why do it?
Other forces at work?
I'll let you all get back to discussing more important stuff, like firemen spraying aeroplanes with water.
Bizzare old place, pprune, unless it's me.
Stansted 13 June 2008
A manager kindly arranged this for me on my last flight - it was a complete surprise.
There is no truth in the rumour that the RFF was called out in case I messed up my last landing.
A manager kindly arranged this for me on my last flight - it was a complete surprise.
There is no truth in the rumour that the RFF was called out in case I messed up my last landing.
Our ship was GBYAL, but I don't recall the reggie of the 757 that gave that bird a very severe headache.
It was quite an emotional moment - and strange too. Under the arch it was like taxying through a waterfall & we lost sight of the centreline for a few seconds, prompting the thought: 'Great, my last flight & I'll probably end on the grass!'
It was quite an emotional moment - and strange too. Under the arch it was like taxying through a waterfall & we lost sight of the centreline for a few seconds, prompting the thought: 'Great, my last flight & I'll probably end on the grass!'
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Val D'Isere
It hasn't yet occured to anyone to ask why someone would take redundancy from a well paid job at age 45, a year after being involved in a major incident, with causes as yet unreported. I haven't read much of the thread, so I'm assuming the causes are unknown.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: bristol
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capt.peter burkill
having just read the article referrinng too capt.burkills last flight before taking voluntary redundancy at the age of just 44, i was wondering would he have a problem getting a captains role in another carrier.?best of luck too him
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain
Relative to the Captain's personal decisions, I suggest it is private, and in a civil forum would remain so. Sullenberger has wandered the public domain, so an easy answer would be any carrier would be only too happy to hire Sully, bridge his seniority, and amplify his take home remuneration.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Age: 86
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wanted to add a comment that (in my opinion) the test procedure for icing that was set up to replicate in some way the combination of limiting permissible conditions was the best way to go. It may be true that it went a little beyond the actual conditions (as they are thought to be known). But it is well to consider what can happen.
I read the test reports carefully; they seemed well thought out. The only thing which caught my eye was that it had never occurred to me that the fuel piping and heat exchanger could be such an efficient scavenger of small amounts of water from the fuel.
One thing I saw way back was a Boeing memo concerning the use of the 3-degree Centigrade safety margin in using the stagnation* temperature of the outside air as the limiting low temperature of the wing interior.
*A term from thermodynamics; yes, I know a different term is usually used here. (a senior moment that I cannot recall it).
Anyway, 3C margin is a round number: 5 degrees in Fahrenheit as we mostly used to use. That margin goes back a long way-- at least to before the mid-60's and the days of the first commercial jet-- I researched that at the time. Interestingly, in the Boeing memo the justification for its continued use was that it had been used for a long time without any problems (or words to that effect). The memo was a quite frank, thorough and informed discussion of the issues surrounding fuel temperature, written before this incident. It was an informative memo of the sort that is so seldom seen in engineering any more. I was going to mention it and post a link to it, but when I did so, it had been removed (or moved).
The moral of this is, I think, that there are things in engineering that we do not fully understand (or lack the capability to deal with using practical mathematics), and so need now to increase our margins in this area.
OE
I read the test reports carefully; they seemed well thought out. The only thing which caught my eye was that it had never occurred to me that the fuel piping and heat exchanger could be such an efficient scavenger of small amounts of water from the fuel.
One thing I saw way back was a Boeing memo concerning the use of the 3-degree Centigrade safety margin in using the stagnation* temperature of the outside air as the limiting low temperature of the wing interior.
*A term from thermodynamics; yes, I know a different term is usually used here. (a senior moment that I cannot recall it).
Anyway, 3C margin is a round number: 5 degrees in Fahrenheit as we mostly used to use. That margin goes back a long way-- at least to before the mid-60's and the days of the first commercial jet-- I researched that at the time. Interestingly, in the Boeing memo the justification for its continued use was that it had been used for a long time without any problems (or words to that effect). The memo was a quite frank, thorough and informed discussion of the issues surrounding fuel temperature, written before this incident. It was an informative memo of the sort that is so seldom seen in engineering any more. I was going to mention it and post a link to it, but when I did so, it had been removed (or moved).
The moral of this is, I think, that there are things in engineering that we do not fully understand (or lack the capability to deal with using practical mathematics), and so need now to increase our margins in this area.
OE
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully accept that if there are suspicions raised of peculiar behaviour in the icing behaviour of fuel it should be investigated, and not for just one engine/aircraft set-up, but for all.
However, the present information is based on an unrepresentative fuel/water mix and hence can only be indicative of a possible problem. Only when either the icing problem is found to occur with a properly representative set-up OR when a suitable explanation for a different fuel/water mixture is found can any reliance be placed on thetest results.
The false start given by various non-AAIB press releases is irresponsible.
.
However, the present information is based on an unrepresentative fuel/water mix and hence can only be indicative of a possible problem. Only when either the icing problem is found to occur with a properly representative set-up OR when a suitable explanation for a different fuel/water mixture is found can any reliance be placed on thetest results.
The false start given by various non-AAIB press releases is irresponsible.
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't been following the thread but have just been forwarded this:
OFTEN WHEN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHY SOMETHING WENT WRONG . . . . I try to see what Civil Air Regulations said about it. In this case it is CAR 4b - section 435(b) . . . I was trying to figure out why the fuel filter iced-up on the BA 777 Glider at Heathrow. I found it. this subparagraph said . . . . [(d) Provision shall be made to maintain automatically the fuel flow when ice-clogging of the filter occurs, unless means are incorporated in the fuel system to prevent the accumulation of ice particles on the filter.]
This Standard missed the transition from CAR 4b to FAR Part 25 or Part 33 - Engines. The B-777 has a fuel heater but it merely requires a certain temperature. Too bad we didn't stay with the automatic Bypass feature!
JIM
This Standard missed the transition from CAR 4b to FAR Part 25 or Part 33 - Engines. The B-777 has a fuel heater but it merely requires a certain temperature. Too bad we didn't stay with the automatic Bypass feature!
JIM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: usa
Age: 79
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I’ve followed the thread from the start. In my opinion, the current theory is not compatible with the known parameters of the flight. The mystery of what really happened to BA038 continues.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am basically a lurker, but I've read the thread fully, and see a loophole for stoic. The FOHE is not labelled as a filter, filtering is simply not its intended function. Nominally, its blockage was caused by trapping ice at the tube sheet. There is even a bypass, but for the oil, not the fuel, and that through an air cooled matrix.
Technically, it did 'filter' the fuel. Additionally, it is not intended as a fuel heater, but does that as well, though 'poorly'.
with respect,
bear
Technically, it did 'filter' the fuel. Additionally, it is not intended as a fuel heater, but does that as well, though 'poorly'.
with respect,
bear
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic Physics
Ok I have read thru most of this thread and I find it very disturbing why the reason for this failure cannot be found. In this year of 2009 I would expect the science community to have some ability to determine when a liquid will become a solid.
Have I missed something really simple here? Could it be that some players involved do not want to find the truth?
Now I have to admit that I am well known social dyslexic who often cannot see the motives that confound the human race to self destruct....
But hell...I just cannot see why this big modern airplane suffered from something as simple as fuel coagulation on descent. Did we not all learn to apply CARB HEAT....jeez!
Have I missed something really simple here? Could it be that some players involved do not want to find the truth?
Now I have to admit that I am well known social dyslexic who often cannot see the motives that confound the human race to self destruct....
But hell...I just cannot see why this big modern airplane suffered from something as simple as fuel coagulation on descent. Did we not all learn to apply CARB HEAT....jeez!
Ok I have read thru most of this thread and I find it very disturbing why the reason for this failure cannot be found. In this year of 2009 I would expect the science community to have some ability to determine when a liquid will become a solid.
If you had really read this thread as you claim, and taken on board some very erudite input from fuel chemists and engine system engineers, then you would have realised that the "simple" issue is extremely complex.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBA vs MSc!
This is not a difficult problem to solve and I am sure that many realize this.
The complexity is in the mind and is more to do with social science than hard science.
The complexity is in the mind and is more to do with social science than hard science.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: usa
Age: 79
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a way, I'm with DERG on this. Time to call in ye old pump engineer. Tell to bring his cavitation check list. Go down it item by item. One of them hasn't been looked at hard.