|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
Date: Jan 18, 2008 16:38
Sylvia Else wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> Various news reports starting to appear say that a British Airways
>>> B777 landed short at Heathrow whilst operating flight 38 from
>>> Beijing today (Thursday in the UK). 136 passengers and 16 crew on
>>> board, all OK, assorted minor injuries. Reports vary as to how
>>> many were hospitalised (6-13). Main gear collapsed, rear of
>>> the aircraft on the ground. Passengers evacuated via the slides
>>> whilst airport firies applied foam. Some 200 other flights
>>> to/from Heathrow cancelled, some diverted to other London
>>> airports.
>>>
>>> It's hard to put details to it at the moment. The press is still
>>> full of the usual rushed passenger interview type of quotes!
>>>
>>> Assorted pictures at:
>>>
>>> < http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQIDek8XdgX9os6WS-5VL-MIcmqg>
>>>
>>> < http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/18/2141154.htm?section=business> ...
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Jan 18, 2008 17:36
Dave Kearton wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> GB wrote:
>>>> Various news reports starting to appear say that a British Airways
>>>> B777 landed short at Heathrow whilst operating flight 38 from
>>>> Beijing today (Thursday in the UK). 136 passengers and 16 crew on
>>>> board, all OK, assorted minor injuries. Reports vary as to how
>>>> many were hospitalised (6-13). Main gear collapsed, rear of
>>>> the aircraft on the ground. Passengers evacuated via the slides
>>>> whilst airport firies applied foam. Some 200 other flights
>>>> to/from Heathrow cancelled, some diverted to other London
>>>> airports.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to put details to it at the moment. The press is still
>>>> full of the usual rushed passenger interview type of quotes!
>>>>
>>>> Assorted pictures at:
>>>>
>>>> < http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQIDek8XdgX9os6WS-5VL-MIcmqg>
>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: matt webermatt weber Date: Jan 19, 2008 12:31
There are some suggestions nows that is may be a fuel contamination
issue, and have nothing to do with ETOPS, Twin engines, or anything
else airframe based.
Fuel contamination would certainly explain it quite well. Meet genuine
imitation Jet-A1, say 90%% Jet A, 10%% Bunk Fuel oil.... Aircraft fuel
systems were never designed to pump heavy fuel oil....
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PitsPits Date: Jan 19, 2008 14:12
On Jan 20, 5:31 am, matt weber verizon.net> wrote:>>Reports now indicate that they didn't lose power, but could not increase
>>it when required.
>
>
>>Another 'impossible' common mode failure in a redundant system?
>
>>Sylvia.
>
> There are some suggestions nows that is may be a fuel contamination
> issue, and have nothing to do with ETOPS, Twin engines, or anything
> else airframe based.
>
> Fuel contamination would certainly explain it quite well. Meet genuine
> imitation Jet-A1, say 90%% Jet A, 10%% Bunk Fuel oil.... Aircraft fuel
> systems were never designed to pump heavy fuel oil....
No wish to de bunk this. But are you saying there is a "suspicion"
that this sort of thing goes on in China
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Jan 19, 2008 14:52
matt weber wrote:
> There are some suggestions nows that is may be a fuel contamination
> issue, and have nothing to do with ETOPS, Twin engines, or anything
> else airframe based.
>
> Fuel contamination would certainly explain it quite well. Meet genuine
> imitation Jet-A1, say 90%% Jet A, 10%% Bunk Fuel oil.... Aircraft fuel
> systems were never designed to pump heavy fuel oil....
|
| Show full article (0.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Jan 21, 2008 13:54
Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:44:08 +1100, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>>> No offence, but ROFLMA!
>> Why? What part do you disagree with?
>
> "The engines would be driven from separate tanks"
They usually are - one on the left - one on the right. Crossfeed
wouldn't be in use unless there was a significant imbalance. So you're
left with the problem of explaining how fuel contamination could hit
both engines at the same time after an extended flight time.
Sylvia.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bernd FelscheBernd Felsche Date: Jan 21, 2008 15:19
Sylvia Else wrote:
>Paul Saccani wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:44:08 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>>>> No offence, but ROFLMA!
>>> Why? What part do you disagree with?
>> "The engines would be driven from separate tanks"
>They usually are - one on the left - one on the right. Crossfeed
>wouldn't be in use unless there was a significant imbalance. So you're
>left with the problem of explaining how fuel contamination could hit
>both engines at the same time after an extended flight time.
How does the fuel get into the aircraft's tanks?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Great minds discuss ideas;
X against HTML mail | Average minds discuss events;
/ \ and postings | Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Jan 21, 2008 17:43
Bernd Felsche wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:44:08 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> No offence, but ROFLMA!
>>>> Why? What part do you disagree with?
>
>>> "The engines would be driven from separate tanks"
>
>> They usually are - one on the left - one on the right. Crossfeed
>> wouldn't be in use unless there was a significant imbalance. So you're
>> left with the problem of explaining how fuel contamination could hit
>> both engines at the same time after an extended flight time.
>
> How does the fuel get into the aircraft's tanks?
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
