Plane Landed short at Heathrow
Discussion
srebbe64 said:
Probably ice in the fuelIt's only an interim report for those that like the facts.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/interim_re...
So that took them nearly 9 months to figure out what PH got in one day.. rubbish 
knick pee on the 18th Jan said:
I've just quizzed one of our very experienced pilots about this subject.
He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
Eric Mc said:
I'm sure they suspected it from early on too. But they have to be cautious before making any announcements. They have to rule out any other possible causes.
You can hardly blame them either. {I suppose I'm not suggesting that you particularly are either}
The very nature of ice is that it melts leaving little or no trace. I suppose that if it were ice in the fuel, the only hints would be abnormal fuel composition, and internal damage (abrasion) from ice crystals.
If the plane was at the end of a long flight, as it was, then there wouldn't be much fuel to test, and the bigger the quantity the clearer the picture. On top of that I seem to remember that the landing gear penetrated the fuel tanks causing them to leak.
I guess that just leaves the hope of some trace of internal damage.
I have a feeling it'll be a while yet before there's any firm conclusion, if ever. The thing being that it seems the most likely, but intrinsically unprovable scenario.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 4th September 17:35
Eric Mc said:
Evidence of ice and icing is always a bit difficult to obtain because it tends to have disappeared by the time the investigators arrive on the scene.
The internal damage thing is not beyond the bound though. They usually send the salvaged parts (engines/pumps/valves) back to the manufacturers for microscopic examination, so it might yield.That thing with the eyewitness, going on about the noise from the plane, also has me thinking that what was left of the engines and power thereof, was making an abnormally loud noise. That speaks of traceable damage. If the tale is there I guess they just have to prove that there is a scenario that icing of the fuel can produce similar damage, in identical new components.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 4th September 17:44
fatboy b said:
Cara Van Man said:
I've just quizzed one of our very experienced pilots about this subject.
He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
I very much doubt that would be the case. Each engine draws fuel from a different tank. So for this to happen, both feed lines would have to block at the same time. The bypass system would be used to correct fuel imbalance due to high consumtion or leak. I also doubt that an airport would be allowed to fuel a plane with incorrect fuel, if there is a chance ice could form in it when the plane flies at it's normal altitude.He is certain there is no way a power failure (elec) would cause a double engine failure.
His best guess is ice in the fuel. It had travelled from China at high altitude and there was a good chance the fuel did not contain inhibitor.
When they then descended and throttled back the fuel system bypass may have blocked....this would normally be flashed up in the cockpit and throttles re-applied to clear the fault........however, if the engines flamed out at such a low altitude, then recovery would have been almost impossible.
Sounds feasible to me.
No need to apologise
I saw this today, apparently the Heat Exchanger in the RR Trent engine needs a bit of a redesign.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article58...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article58...
ALawson said:
I saw this today, apparently the Heat Exchanger in the RR Trent engine needs a bit of a redesign.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article58...
So much for global warming - its getting colder up there!http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article58...
k me.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff