BA038 (B777) Thread
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work in business systems IT and not in any aviation based profession
Given that they've still been unable to find any indication of a mechanical fault yet this is something significant enough to affect both engines, what do you guys think are the chances of this being a software problem ?
Given that they've still been unable to find any indication of a mechanical fault yet this is something significant enough to affect both engines, what do you guys think are the chances of this being a software problem ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(apparently) not a software problem
From the AAIB's statements on the functioning of the aircraft systems, it appears that all software systems in the Autothrottle and EEC's (and elsewhere) functioned as expected
Mmm! pulling the fire handles at 700 ft. Now would that have the same affect?
Actually I see from other posts that the QAR did not record the last 45 secs. But I guess the FDR would have. So am just wondering when the handles got pulled. After it came to a halt I guess, interesting senario on the post impact fuel spill.
I'll go back under me rock.
Actually I see from other posts that the QAR did not record the last 45 secs. But I guess the FDR would have. So am just wondering when the handles got pulled. After it came to a halt I guess, interesting senario on the post impact fuel spill.
I'll go back under me rock.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: WGS 84
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is really surprising to see that both engines lost power at (almost) the same time, and in addition, they both came to same low RPM (above flight idle). In case of ice obstruction, it's already quite unlikely to expect a simultaneous event, but how can it lead to a similar low thrust setting on both engines ???
It means both ice obstructions did let a similar leak on both sides...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but up to now, it's only the indicated fuel quantity that was reported, not the actual fuel found in the wreckage...
I just want to remind that Tunintair had a fuel exhaustion accident while indications were showing adequate fuel on board... Is it really impossible to consider low fuel conditions causing the cavitation in high pitch attitude ?
It means both ice obstructions did let a similar leak on both sides...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but up to now, it's only the indicated fuel quantity that was reported, not the actual fuel found in the wreckage...
I just want to remind that Tunintair had a fuel exhaustion accident while indications were showing adequate fuel on board... Is it really impossible to consider low fuel conditions causing the cavitation in high pitch attitude ?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Topslide6,
thanks for the comment. I just like to stress that I'm not blaming the crew in any way here. The situation was apparently so extraordinary that one can't realistically expect more.
thanks for the comment. I just like to stress that I'm not blaming the crew in any way here. The situation was apparently so extraordinary that one can't realistically expect more.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Age: 79
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel quantity..
sispanys ria,
You are right - only the indicated fuel quantity is mentioned in the report, but the report also mentions that samples have been taken from the 2 wing tanks.
Later in the report the following statement is given:
You are right - only the indicated fuel quantity is mentioned in the report, but the report also mentions that samples have been taken from the 2 wing tanks.
Later in the report the following statement is given:
A test of the fuel quantity processor unit (FQPU) was satisfactory and its non-volatile memory did not reveal any defects stored prior to the accident.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but up to now, it's only the indicated fuel quantity that was reported, not the actual fuel found in the wreckage...
I just want to remind that Tunintair had a fuel exhaustion accident while indications were showing adequate fuel on board... Is it really impossible to consider low fuel conditions causing the cavitation in high pitch attitude ?
I just want to remind that Tunintair had a fuel exhaustion accident while indications were showing adequate fuel on board... Is it really impossible to consider low fuel conditions causing the cavitation in high pitch attitude ?
Re: water/other fuel contamination - there wasn't any. The AAIB report makes fascinating reading. I highly recommend it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: WGS 84
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avrflr i'm sorry you cannot post a polite reply. I'm just interrogating myself, and never mentioned fuel exhaustion, but in a low fuel configuration, it might have been possible that the tank LP pumps were not able to provide the adequate fuel to the HP pumps...
As you refer to the small items found in the tanks, I would like to see how you explain that almost simultaneously, two different items would have reduced two fuel flows to two similar values on both engines...
As you refer to the small items found in the tanks, I would like to see how you explain that almost simultaneously, two different items would have reduced two fuel flows to two similar values on both engines...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 65
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Water and ice cristals are normal into the airliners tanks,and comes with the air that vent tanks entering by the NACA inlets near the wing tips,not during refueling.
Also,to much debriss to block both booster pumps per wing tank...the engine fuel feed lines in the 777 are about 3 inches diameter.
Also,to much debriss to block both booster pumps per wing tank...the engine fuel feed lines in the 777 are about 3 inches diameter.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avrflr i'm sorry you cannot post a polite reply. I'm just interrogating myself, and never mentioned fuel exhaustion, but in a low fuel configuration, it might have been possible that the tank LP pumps were not able to provide the adequate fuel to the HP pumps...
As you refer to the small items found in the tanks, I would like to see how you explain that almost simultaneously, two different items would have reduced two fuel flows to two similar values on both engines...
As you refer to the small items found in the tanks, I would like to see how you explain that almost simultaneously, two different items would have reduced two fuel flows to two similar values on both engines...
I can't explain how the accident happened, but then neither can the AAIB at the moment and they do this for a living. They are not stupid or corrupt, if the answer was simple, like low fuel or contaminated fuel, they would have told us on day 1.
gerry foley
Gerry, you are reading my post literally. Replace 'post - event' with 'after the event' and you will see what I am trying to say: "how can you tell, from the evidence, when you look at the impeller after the event, that cavitation, which is a transient phenomenon, has actually occurred". Apologies for my clumsy british english phrasing. And the answer was given above by several people: pitting, damage, caused by huge pressure forces and detonation.
But despite all the slightly sarcastic comments to my earlier post no one has answered my question: If it isnt ice, wax, or water, what other common mode control law reduced one engine seven seconds after the other? I still refuse to believe that there is 100% independant authority and segregation between the two engines at all times and that there is never ever a point or situation at which the two engines in a modern aircraft with digital engine and fuel management controls have the function to compare thrust and balance accordingly. I just cant believe that you guys have to either continually adjust throttles to compensate for small variations in thrust between engines or use rudder trim to keep a constant heading (eg in the cruise)? How fuel inefficient that would be. There must at some point and in some flight modes be a digital comparison between the thrust produced in each engine and my question is still, is there concievably a flight mode or condition such that when one engine unexpectedly loses power (eg if fuel feed blocked by a red plastic scraper) the other engine is electronically limited to avoid... well you tell me. There must be a 777 sparky out there who has the FADEC decision logic.
Otherwise, there's only one explanation.. different pieces of crud left behind in different wings just happened to block respective fuel filter screens just seconds apart. I dont believe that and neither do you...
But despite all the slightly sarcastic comments to my earlier post no one has answered my question: If it isnt ice, wax, or water, what other common mode control law reduced one engine seven seconds after the other? I still refuse to believe that there is 100% independant authority and segregation between the two engines at all times and that there is never ever a point or situation at which the two engines in a modern aircraft with digital engine and fuel management controls have the function to compare thrust and balance accordingly. I just cant believe that you guys have to either continually adjust throttles to compensate for small variations in thrust between engines or use rudder trim to keep a constant heading (eg in the cruise)? How fuel inefficient that would be. There must at some point and in some flight modes be a digital comparison between the thrust produced in each engine and my question is still, is there concievably a flight mode or condition such that when one engine unexpectedly loses power (eg if fuel feed blocked by a red plastic scraper) the other engine is electronically limited to avoid... well you tell me. There must be a 777 sparky out there who has the FADEC decision logic.
Otherwise, there's only one explanation.. different pieces of crud left behind in different wings just happened to block respective fuel filter screens just seconds apart. I dont believe that and neither do you...
Guest
Posts: n/a
AAIB Report
My reading was that the Fuel was "in Spec". Is that "within Spec" for pure Fuel or does that consider that there is no "Spec" for Water, Alcohol, Glycol, or Canal Mud? I'd like to see collection protocol, transit, and testing methods before I defend the FUEL. (As in, what reality offered in the way of combustible supply to RR1 and RR2.) Just Sayin'.
Last edited by airfoilmod; 20th Feb 2008 at 15:23. Reason: numbered alt./ deleted by Moderator, lost pertinence
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Topslide6
I must admit, my initial response on hearing about this was that it was probably to do with FADEC or the 777 equivilent. However, on reflection I would have said it's highly unlikely, but still possible. With the certification process these aircraft go through, and how many commercial flights the 777 has done to date, the laws of probability would dictate that it ought to have manifested itself by now.
The certification process and 3.6 million flight hours says virtually nothing about manifestation of SW faults. For an example, consider that the certification process and a large percentage of those flight hours failed to discover a significant bug in the flight control SW that manifested itself first in August 2005 out of Perth.
PBL
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuing to defend the fuel
My reading was that the Fuel was "in Spec". Is that "within Spec" for pure Fuel or does that consider that there is no "Spec" for Water, Alcohol, Glycol, or Canal Mud? I'd like to see collection protocol, transit, and testing methods before I defend the FUEL. (As in, what reality offered in the way of combustible supply to RR1 and RR2.) Just Sayin'. #124, #125
I'm with Avrflr
As an ex-fuel guy, if they've sampled properly, and actually taken a sample down to the worst case temperature and its OK, then its not fuel - period. And hopefully none of you - especially Danny - will remember what I offered to do if I was wrong in asserting it was waxing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Start
I don't think I'm committing what I deplore. A conclusion of any kind is premature, speculation never is. Having been tested, the Fuel, to me, remains to be exonerated. Speculation, by its very nature, could lead to incrimination, which is silly at this point. My retort had naught to do with clever chaps, but ill advised exoneration of any procuring cause, which the chaps have not done, and someone, I think, thinks they have.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must know something about fuel that I don't. If testing won't exonerate it, what will?
I'm all for speculation, but let's have hypotheses that don't require me to believe that the AAIB are morons. Or that jet fuel has acquired some hitherto undiscovered properties that can't be revealed by fuel testing laboratories.
I'm all for speculation, but let's have hypotheses that don't require me to believe that the AAIB are morons. Or that jet fuel has acquired some hitherto undiscovered properties that can't be revealed by fuel testing laboratories.