If. lke you suggested, it had been a minute
earlier, Slough would look very different today.
john bates wrote:
*** I've heard of fly by wire but don't know much about it - What
bugs me is that if it were just engine failure, that must mean that
controls were not affected.
No. The engines didn't fail. This is gross oversimplification by the
press. It was the CONTROL SYSTEM that failed (or the fuel feed).
john bates wrote:
The fact that some experienced people all mentioned the nose high
attitude before a stall (Which was the case due to the very short
distance it travelled on the grass)
If it had truly STALLED there would have been a far nastier mess. The
pilot was just 'stetching' the glide.
why did it do this if under perfect control? This to
me implies that it was not just the engines.
The engines didn't fail. There's clear evidence at least one was
turning when it landed.
john bates wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
john bates wrote:it
The fact that some experienced people all mentioned the nose high
attitude before a stall (Which was the case due to the very short
distance
travelled on the grass)
If it had truly STALLED there would have been a far nastier mess.
The pilot was just 'stetching' the glide.
why did it do this if under perfect control? This to
me implies that it was not just the engines.
The engines didn't fail. There's clear evidence at least one was
turning when it landed. They 'failed' to respond to a call for
power. That's where the 'failure' is and it looks likely to be
electronic to me (or some bizarre
fuel quality related issue).
Graham
*** All very interesting, Thanks Graham.
As a followup I thought of a better explanation perhaps.
The engines weren't working because of a failure somewhere else.
You'll see the AAIB has been careful (unlike the media) not to say
'the engines failed'. There's a big difference between 'not working'
and failed.
e)Landing gear damage ... somebody said the plane must have hit hard
(high vertical velocity). Not necessarily true.
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in >news:4792752A.415DF4C5@hotmail.com:
john bates wrote:
*** I've heard of fly by wire but don't know much about it - What
bugs me is that if it were just engine failure, that must mean that
controls were not affected.
No. The engines didn't fail. This is gross oversimplification by the
press. It was the CONTROL SYSTEM that failed (or the fuel feed).
Yeah right big difference fjukkwit.
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:34:32 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks, Bertie the Bunyip <Sm@rt.1> got double secret
probation for writing:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in >>news:4792752A.415DF4C5@hotmail.com:
john bates wrote:
*** I've heard of fly by wire but don't know much about it - What
bugs me is that if it were just engine failure, that must mean that
controls were not affected.
No. The engines didn't fail. This is gross oversimplification by the
press. It was the CONTROL SYSTEM that failed (or the fuel feed).
Yeah right big difference fjukkwit.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the engines are fine, they just are not getting
fuel. Those who are staying at downtown hotels will be arriving at
your hotel a little earlier than expected"
john bates wrote:
The fact that some experienced people all mentioned the nose high
attitude before a stall (Which was the case due to the very short
distance it travelled on the grass)
If it had truly STALLED there would have been a far nastier mess. The
pilot was just 'stetching' the glide.
why did it do this if under perfect control? This to
me implies that it was not just the engines.
The engines didn't fail. There's clear evidence at least one was
turning when it landed. They 'failed' to respond to a call for power.
That's where the 'failure' is and it looks likely to be electronic to
me (or some bizarre fuel quality related issue).
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
Besides this is claimed to be a video of it on finals.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNJPRz4SgM
And you said there ws no video
I said there was no video of the CRASH (as it happened).
user@nouse.org wrote:
David T. Ashley wrote:
"john bates" <jbates31@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
c)Glide distance ... If the problem occurred at 600 feet, there
isn't very much in the world that will affect glide distance
noticeably, except maybe retracting flaps a notch or two. If the
plane is traveling too slow, pitching down to gain a bit of speed
will consume altitude (tradeoff of potential energy). If the plane
is traveling too fast, this means it will be traveling too fast
near the ground, too, and pitching up near the ground will stretch
the glide and bleed off the airspeed so as to delay contact with
the ground. 600 feet is too low for any control actions to make
that much of a difference in glide distance.
Retracting from landing to go-around flaps will not mortgage the
profile, on the contary! And it would be instinctive especially
if no procedure exists. Every inch counts even if little can be
gained. Just how far from the runway did they contact?
About 300m from the threshold..
Whether they could have raised flap is another question.
I suspect tey may have had other things on their mind in the list of priorities.
I'm very curious to know what happened.
I can't see why the investigators cannot come out with a short
statement. I mean they know what happenned, it's just a matter of
finding how and why.
They HAVE.
user@nouse.org wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
They HAVE.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january
_2008___initial_report.cfm
Thanks. Food for thought isn't it?
Serious apparent failure of the electronics for sure for whatever
reason. Still no mention of whether there was a general electrical
power fault. Hmmm, but the throttles should still respond to manual
operation since the FADEC gets its own power from permanent magnet alternators driven directly by the engines and shouldn't be bothered
by main power bus faults.
user@nouse.org wrote:
Some have said the plane just dropped from 200 feet, bull. That would
have meant a lot of very
serious injuries.
You bet.
As far as the digital system (broad sense) goes, that's a good
suspect but I'm still unclear about this business of simultaneous
dual engine outage. It seems that no engines were available, alright,
but has anyone said they were both lost at the same time as
opposed to very far apart?
Yes they have. Simultaneous failure to respond to a demand for power, initally from the auto-throttle and then failure to respond to a
manual movement of the throttles. Something electrical/electronic or
software related looks very suspect right now. Some comment was made
that the captain said he lost the avionics.
Landing trim?Can any 777 types tell from the pictures if all-engines landing flap
had been lowered? That would negate an engine-out approach before the
second one packed up.
It was in full landing trim.
| Sysop: | Nelgin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Plano, TX |
| Users: | 513 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 06:16:59 |
| Calls: | 8,293 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,520 |
| Messages: | 929,067 |