BA038 (B777) Thread
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel System Schematics
Report states that crossfeed valves were closes for entire flight...and 10K fuel balanced for the most part in the two main tanks....
Was center tank fuel uploaded for this flight, and if so, roughly how much?.
As I am unfamiliar with the 777 ( only the 747-200 & -400 ), are the CWT fuel boost pumps "override" pumps, as in the type that will put out more pressure than the mains?. And if so, is there any limitations to having them on below a certain volume?. Could there be any possibility that CWT fuel ( mabye unscavenged fuel ) at highpressure was feeding/cavitating both engines?. Would only the pump cavitate, or would air be induced into the system?.
I know SOP would most likely have had Center tank emptied by now, and pumps switched off, but again I'm looking for a "common feed" so to speak.
Again, I am unfamiliar with the 777, and I know there is a wealth of knowledge spread ( unevenly ) amongst those who peruse this forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the kudos for the "wonderful" job the Autopilot did...
If I were handflying this approach, and lost thrust, would I sacrifice altitude for airspeed ( to prevent a stall ), damm fckng right I would.
And YES, with a loss of thrust, I KNOW I could FLY it to the ground a WHOLE lot better than the A/P. This is airmanship 101 guys. The only question I have is at what point do I realize I had no thrust and then act.
As I have no doubt there are those that will lay into me....lube liberally pre-applied.
Was center tank fuel uploaded for this flight, and if so, roughly how much?.
As I am unfamiliar with the 777 ( only the 747-200 & -400 ), are the CWT fuel boost pumps "override" pumps, as in the type that will put out more pressure than the mains?. And if so, is there any limitations to having them on below a certain volume?. Could there be any possibility that CWT fuel ( mabye unscavenged fuel ) at highpressure was feeding/cavitating both engines?. Would only the pump cavitate, or would air be induced into the system?.
I know SOP would most likely have had Center tank emptied by now, and pumps switched off, but again I'm looking for a "common feed" so to speak.
Again, I am unfamiliar with the 777, and I know there is a wealth of knowledge spread ( unevenly ) amongst those who peruse this forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the kudos for the "wonderful" job the Autopilot did...
If I were handflying this approach, and lost thrust, would I sacrifice altitude for airspeed ( to prevent a stall ), damm fckng right I would.
And YES, with a loss of thrust, I KNOW I could FLY it to the ground a WHOLE lot better than the A/P. This is airmanship 101 guys. The only question I have is at what point do I realize I had no thrust and then act.
As I have no doubt there are those that will lay into me....lube liberally pre-applied.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/P disconnect
It seems apparant that the A/P remained engaged down to 175 feet. Although the A/P is a pilot`s best friend in most emergency situations, perhaps it was not the case in this instance.
The speed at 750 feet must have been about 140 Kts.
The speed at 200 feet was 108 Kts.
As the the A/P was engaged, the AFDS was trying to maintain the glideslope, with a probable linear speed decay. The speed loss was approximately 32 kts in 500 feet.
Every kt of speed below VRef 30 would result in a worse Lift/Drag ratio, with the result that the aeroplane could not eek out as much distance as it potentially could if it was flying at it`s best L/D ratio speed (approx VRef). At 108 Kts, the L/D ratio would be significantly reduced.
The speed at 750 feet must have been about 140 Kts.
The speed at 200 feet was 108 Kts.
As the the A/P was engaged, the AFDS was trying to maintain the glideslope, with a probable linear speed decay. The speed loss was approximately 32 kts in 500 feet.
Every kt of speed below VRef 30 would result in a worse Lift/Drag ratio, with the result that the aeroplane could not eek out as much distance as it potentially could if it was flying at it`s best L/D ratio speed (approx VRef). At 108 Kts, the L/D ratio would be significantly reduced.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
New member in this Forum , and flying 777 outside UK .
My SOP seems quite different than the one described : mine is telling that ( except Cat 2/3 ops ) PF is flying whole sector : no hand over in approach .
Does BA SOP mean the PF has the controls until TOD and take it again at 1000 AGL ? And what reason motivate such a practice ?
Am I correct ?
Thanks !
New member in this Forum , and flying 777 outside UK .
My SOP seems quite different than the one described : mine is telling that ( except Cat 2/3 ops ) PF is flying whole sector : no hand over in approach .
Does BA SOP mean the PF has the controls until TOD and take it again at 1000 AGL ? And what reason motivate such a practice ?
Am I correct ?
Thanks !
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that clear explanation, I was as surprised as MU3001A, but discovering that specific BA procedure (?), AAIB report makes now more sense.
What still does not make any sense considering that almost simultaneous double eng similar misbehaving:
1- "total fuel on board was indicating 10500 kg" ... but no mention of the actual FOB retrieved from the main tanks ?
2- "the fuel crossfeed valves indicated that they were closed" ...but no mention they have been physically checked closed ?
Also:
- What could justify that amazing 5% reduction over the planned fuel burn ?
- Did the engines actually spool up somewhere in the hold ?
What still does not make any sense considering that almost simultaneous double eng similar misbehaving:
1- "total fuel on board was indicating 10500 kg" ... but no mention of the actual FOB retrieved from the main tanks ?
2- "the fuel crossfeed valves indicated that they were closed" ...but no mention they have been physically checked closed ?
Also:
- What could justify that amazing 5% reduction over the planned fuel burn ?
- Did the engines actually spool up somewhere in the hold ?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote :
Phil,
The speed is controlled by the fuel going to the burners, N1 in my book, this is determined by the demands of the throttles set by the crew. This is basic gas turbine operation.
unquote
I meant the speed of operation of the fuel pump.
The fuel valves were open, the throttles (and auto-pilot) demanded an engine speed higher than that acheived, the actual speed of the fuel pumps doesn't seem to have been stated in the special report.
.
Phil,
The speed is controlled by the fuel going to the burners, N1 in my book, this is determined by the demands of the throttles set by the crew. This is basic gas turbine operation.
unquote
I meant the speed of operation of the fuel pump.
The fuel valves were open, the throttles (and auto-pilot) demanded an engine speed higher than that acheived, the actual speed of the fuel pumps doesn't seem to have been stated in the special report.
.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milt,
Not so, the fuel from the aircraft supply system (read tank fuel booster pumps) is fed into a compined LP and HP fuel pump assembly on each engine.
When we operators talk about LP Low Pressure pumps we mean tank booster or transfer pumps
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody mentioned electrical disruption further back in the thread, and I feel it may merit some thought here.
Question - are the tank booster pumps normally in operation in this configuration all fed from the same bus? (not a 777 operator, BTW - I'm assuming here that they're the standard 3-phase type commonly employed).
Reason being, I have come across an odd mode of electrical failure on a previous type, whereby a single phase on a single bus tripping off creates all sorts of oddities - the cause of which are not immediately obvious, since a motor with a dead phase acts as a generator on that phase (still being driven by the 2 good phases) preventing any indications of electrical failure, but sending oddly-shaped wigglyamps to other components.
Might be a worthless tangent, then again, might not be. Just something else to throw into the collective headscratching!
Question - are the tank booster pumps normally in operation in this configuration all fed from the same bus? (not a 777 operator, BTW - I'm assuming here that they're the standard 3-phase type commonly employed).
Reason being, I have come across an odd mode of electrical failure on a previous type, whereby a single phase on a single bus tripping off creates all sorts of oddities - the cause of which are not immediately obvious, since a motor with a dead phase acts as a generator on that phase (still being driven by the 2 good phases) preventing any indications of electrical failure, but sending oddly-shaped wigglyamps to other components.
Might be a worthless tangent, then again, might not be. Just something else to throw into the collective headscratching!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some new AAIB statement could be found in the Guardian today:
And the Telegraph writes
Kieran Daly, editor of Air Transport Intelligence, said: "The AAIB have effectively ruled out virtually all the potential causes of the accident. They are now following two lines of inquiry. There were signs that not enough fuel was reaching the pumps that finally pump the fuel into the engines and they are looking at the debris in the fuel tanks."
"Detailed examination of… fuel pumps revealed signs of abnormal cavitation (air bubbles) on the pressure-side bearings and the outlet ports. This could be indicative of either a restriction in the fuel supply to the pumps or excessive aeration of the fuel."
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On reflection, I think we can safely ignore the bits and pieces in the tanks as causes of fuel starvation (scraper, paper, etc). Remember that there are 2 pumps in EACH tank. All four tank pump inlets would have to be blocked to cause the problems seen. Each pump is designed to provide enough pressure/flow to supply the onside engine with fuel for all flight regimes (and probably more). The lowest spec I've seen for a 777 wing tank pump is 12psi and 16tonnes/hr
I don't have the wiring schematics handy, but I believe the L/R wing tank pumps are powered by their onside Transfer Busses.
Rgds.
NSEU
I don't have the wiring schematics handy, but I believe the L/R wing tank pumps are powered by their onside Transfer Busses.
Rgds.
NSEU
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TwinAisle cites Private Eye's article, and says "clearly there are elements that don't add up".
There are two major points that "don't add up".
First, the article asserts that FBW systems before the B777 were triple-redundant, designed/written/implemented by three separate teams. That is rubbish.
Second, the article concentrates on the PFC (and maybe on the AIMS). I don't think anybody has suggested there was something wrong with primary flight control.
PBL
There are two major points that "don't add up".
First, the article asserts that FBW systems before the B777 were triple-redundant, designed/written/implemented by three separate teams. That is rubbish.
Second, the article concentrates on the PFC (and maybe on the AIMS). I don't think anybody has suggested there was something wrong with primary flight control.
PBL
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought for the boffins
AAIB report:
If there was a restriction upstream from the HPFP’s would the effect be to cause the pumps to effectively stall and prevent them from working? A cavitating pump does not generally pump much even if it is:
Such a scenario would account for only minimal amount of fuel reaching the engine. Has there been a fleet check of the pumps to ascertain whether this is a one off or a common defect?
There is also a major discrepancy with the planned fuel burn and the actual. Planned burn including taxi fuel would work out at 72,000 kgs actual burn to short finals was only 68,500 based on the AAIB figures. Was this based on FMC fuel indications or gauge indications?
Unless there was a reason for a 5% difference such as an improved route or altitudes it seems a little large to me.
AAIB report:
Detailed examination of both the left and right engine high
pressure fuel pumps revealed signs of abnormal cavitation
on the pressure-side bearings and the outlet ports. This
could be indicative of either a restriction in the fuel
supply to the pumps or excessive aeration of the fuel. The
manufacturer assessed both pumps as still being capable
of delivering full fuel flow.
pressure fuel pumps revealed signs of abnormal cavitation
on the pressure-side bearings and the outlet ports. This
could be indicative of either a restriction in the fuel
supply to the pumps or excessive aeration of the fuel. The
manufacturer assessed both pumps as still being capable
of delivering full fuel flow.
“capable of delivering full fuel flow”.
There is also a major discrepancy with the planned fuel burn and the actual. Planned burn including taxi fuel would work out at 72,000 kgs actual burn to short finals was only 68,500 based on the AAIB figures. Was this based on FMC fuel indications or gauge indications?
Unless there was a reason for a 5% difference such as an improved route or altitudes it seems a little large to me.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like any pilot dealing with decaying power as this was would put speed control requiring to push the nose down below the requirement to not hit the ground before an obstacle. Clearing the fence and hitting a flat surface saved the people in this case so the pilots did all they could under the circumstances even though they had to sacrifice speed to do so. All they could have done was possibly add flaps before hitting the ground to get closer to the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I am unfamiliar with the 777 ( only the 747-200 & -400 ), are the CWT fuel boost pumps "override" pumps, as in the type that will put out more pressure than the mains?. And if so, is there any limitations to having them on below a certain volume?. Could there be any possibility that CWT fuel ( mabye unscavenged fuel ) at highpressure was feeding/cavitating both engines?. Would only the pump cavitate, or would air be induced into the system?
I know SOP would most likely have had Center tank emptied by now, and pumps switched off, but again I'm looking for a "common feed" so to speak.
Again, I am unfamiliar with the 777, and I know there is a wealth of knowledge spread ( unevenly ) amongst those who peruse this forum.
I know SOP would most likely have had Center tank emptied by now, and pumps switched off, but again I'm looking for a "common feed" so to speak.
Again, I am unfamiliar with the 777, and I know there is a wealth of knowledge spread ( unevenly ) amongst those who peruse this forum.
I believe someone asked earlier.... There is no gravity feed for the CWT.
As far as the kudos for the "wonderful" job the Autopilot did...
If I were handflying this approach, and lost thrust, would I sacrifice altitude for airspeed ( to prevent a stall ), damm fckng right I would.
If I were handflying this approach, and lost thrust, would I sacrifice altitude for airspeed ( to prevent a stall ), damm fckng right I would.
Personally, I think man is a gambler... He is taught what is impossible, but when faced with a large immovable object, he goes for the impossible
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: london
Age: 58
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
phil - you asked about the speed of the HP fuel pumps and how they are controlled - it should be noted that the pumps are not electrical driven but are connected to the the gearbox and as such the gearbox is driven via a shaft which is in turn connected to the N2/N3 compressor spool so the pump speed is not and can not be directly controlled.
regarding the theories about a missing phase from the IDG, this would be sensed and the idg would be disconnected immediatly so that is a non starter
regarding the theories about a missing phase from the IDG, this would be sensed and the idg would be disconnected immediatly so that is a non starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swiss_swiss,
All things being equal, I agree. But I have personally seen a failure mode where a dead phase on a bus was supplied with enough voltage to keep the genny / bus from tripping off, via the two still live phases powering an electrically driven hyd pump. A generator and a motor are essentially the same thing - you spin a motor with a dead phase, and it will generate on that phase and feed any component connected to that phase on the bus. Frequency lockout wouldn't necessarily pick it up either, if the remaining 2 live phases of the motor could draw enough juice from the bus to keep it spinning at close to its normal running speed.
Make sense, or am I not explaining this very clearly? Just to clarify, this isn't idle speculation, this has actually happened to me (on another type, considerably older than 777)
All things being equal, I agree. But I have personally seen a failure mode where a dead phase on a bus was supplied with enough voltage to keep the genny / bus from tripping off, via the two still live phases powering an electrically driven hyd pump. A generator and a motor are essentially the same thing - you spin a motor with a dead phase, and it will generate on that phase and feed any component connected to that phase on the bus. Frequency lockout wouldn't necessarily pick it up either, if the remaining 2 live phases of the motor could draw enough juice from the bus to keep it spinning at close to its normal running speed.
Make sense, or am I not explaining this very clearly? Just to clarify, this isn't idle speculation, this has actually happened to me (on another type, considerably older than 777)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HP Pump speed
Phil
If it's anything like the Fuel Control Unit on my aircraft (which also has R-R engines), the HP Pump pushes out considerably more fuel than the engine needs. A variety of spill valves bleed off fuel for various reasons. The most important is a system that ensures a constant pressure drop across the throttle valve. Adjusting that valve then produces a given flow for a given setting regardless of what the pump is up to (within limits obviously). The electronic side of the engine control adjusts the throttle valve, and a monitoring system tells the electronics whether or not the desired result has been achieved.
What seems to have happened here is that the desired result was not achieved, so the electronics continued opening the throttle (that's all they can do in the last analysis) in order to get the desired result - which didn't happen.
If it's anything like the Fuel Control Unit on my aircraft (which also has R-R engines), the HP Pump pushes out considerably more fuel than the engine needs. A variety of spill valves bleed off fuel for various reasons. The most important is a system that ensures a constant pressure drop across the throttle valve. Adjusting that valve then produces a given flow for a given setting regardless of what the pump is up to (within limits obviously). The electronic side of the engine control adjusts the throttle valve, and a monitoring system tells the electronics whether or not the desired result has been achieved.
What seems to have happened here is that the desired result was not achieved, so the electronics continued opening the throttle (that's all they can do in the last analysis) in order to get the desired result - which didn't happen.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: london
Age: 58
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi inquisitor
your description i can easily follow and can understand how that could be possible. ( i am well versed in motor/generator theory).
mind me asking which type this defect was on and how the system was monitored?
AFAIK (would have to go back and look at my training notes) each individual phase of the 777 is monitored so if 1 is missing then the gen is switched off - would have to confirm this tho.
your description i can easily follow and can understand how that could be possible. ( i am well versed in motor/generator theory).
mind me asking which type this defect was on and how the system was monitored?
AFAIK (would have to go back and look at my training notes) each individual phase of the 777 is monitored so if 1 is missing then the gen is switched off - would have to confirm this tho.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. Fuel pumps.
Thank-you "Swiss Swiss" and "Sven Sixtoo".
If I have got it right, the fuel pumps work continuously at maximum rate (when switched on) and the actual fuel flow to the engines is controlled by the control valve AND spill valves which get rid of any excess pressure.
Are the spill valves actuated, or merely like saftey valves, operated mechanically by excess pressure ?
Thanks
.
Thank-you "Swiss Swiss" and "Sven Sixtoo".
If I have got it right, the fuel pumps work continuously at maximum rate (when switched on) and the actual fuel flow to the engines is controlled by the control valve AND spill valves which get rid of any excess pressure.
Are the spill valves actuated, or merely like saftey valves, operated mechanically by excess pressure ?
Thanks
.