To get the breaking news they had a reporter on the spot.  Someone
with some sort of engineering knowledge, you'd think?  No.  Some dumb
girl waffling on about being on auto-pilot, (wrong) and engine
failure. (wrong again.)
So we get to the 6 pm news.  Studio expert now... again dribbling on
about engine failure.

A stuck throttle is *not* engine failure, for heaven's sake.  A
"control system malfunction" isn't too much for people to understand,
surely.


Tiddy Ogg.
http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk

Tiddy Ogg wrote:
> A stuck throttle is *not* engine failure, for heaven's sake.  A
> "control system malfunction" isn't too much for people to understand,
> surely.

No it isn't. I was very surprised when they reported double engine 
failure, and then that fuel had leaked, because usually total engine 
failure can only be caused by lack of fuel, fuel contamination or 
foreign object ingestion.

It will be interesting to find out what caused this, as I thought each 
engine was under a completely separate control subsystem.

"turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message 
news:4791ecab$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

> It will be interesting to find out what caused this,

Wot reely, reely caused it wos them stupid pilots not being able to tork 
dumb to any BBC reporters wot had been seconded to the story.

Every fool know that when your power goes you should crash on houses and 
roads and black cabs and things like that and not glide like "he wos twenty 
feet above me!"  If that selfish pilot glides twenty foots above you he 
stops you claiming compo.

In message <Lwtkj.55939$A62.43277@fe06.news.easynews.com>, Chief Collard 
 writes
>
>"turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message
>news:4791ecab$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>> It will be interesting to find out what caused this,
>
>Wot reely, reely caused it wos them stupid pilots not being able to tork
>dumb to any BBC reporters wot had been seconded to the story.
>

As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said 
there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft, 
yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.

I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.

-- 
Edward Cowling    "Must go - Got to rub lard on the Cat's boil !"

Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
space-time continuum:

> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.
 
> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report running
to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
you're hinting.
-- 
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

In message , Tiddy Ogg 
 writes
>To get the breaking news they had a reporter on the spot.  Someone
>with some sort of engineering knowledge, you'd think?  No.  Some dumb
>girl waffling on about being on auto-pilot, (wrong) and engine
>failure. (wrong again.)
>So we get to the 6 pm news.  Studio expert now... again dribbling on
>about engine failure.
>

Once the news was read by journalists, now it's read by photogenic & PR 
friendly Sally Smedley types :-)

I remember us all crowding around a TV at work to watch the awful events 
on 9/11 unfold. We kept hearing the news readers coming out with all 
these daft ideas, and just be watching the screens we knew they were 
talking crap.

I remember one saying it might still be a tragic accident after the 
second plane hit !

-- 
Edward Cowling    "Must go - Got to rub lard on the Cat's boil !"

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
> In message <Lwtkj.55939$A62.43277@fe06.news.easynews.com>, Chief Collard 
>  writes
>>
>> "turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message
>> news:4791ecab$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>> It will be interesting to find out what caused this,
>>
>> Wot reely, reely caused it wos them stupid pilots not being able to tork
>> dumb to any BBC reporters wot had been seconded to the story.
>>
> 
> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said 
> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft, 
> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
> 
> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
> 

There was plenty of fuel on the plane, and the engines were running, 
simply not responding to demands for more thrust. Given that each engine 
is completely independent of the other, the problem would seem to be 
very "upstream".

777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything 
remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin, 
that we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.

[cross-posting removed]

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

<snip>

> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.

My money's on a computer system failure.

-- 

SB

In message <fmvcvl$5he$1@aioe.org>, Prai Jei 
 writes
>Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
>space-time continuum:
>
>> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
>> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
>> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
>That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
>plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
>the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.
>
>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report running
>to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
>you're hinting.

Nothing sinister, just plain old.... Did they simply run out of fuel ?


-- 
Edward Cowling    "Must go - Got to rub lard on the Cat's boil !"

In message <JoHkj.50555$Hc3.1875@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, Steve Brooks 
<steveb@postmaster.invalid> writes
>[cross-posting removed]
>
>Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>
>My money's on a computer system failure.
>

Looking at the damage (pictures on BBC website) it seems a miracle there 
was no hint of a fire.

My own personal guess for what it's worth.... they ran out of fuel.


-- 
Edward Cowling    "Must go - Got to rub lard on the Cat's boil !"

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:02:00 +0000, Edward Cowling London UK
 wrote:

>In message <fmvcvl$5he$1@aioe.org>, Prai Jei 
> writes
>>Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
>>space-time continuum:
>>
>>> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
>>> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
>>> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
>>That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
>>plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
>>the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.

According to a report in The Times the captain did send a mayday
message as soon as the plane touched the grass. Both he and the
copilot would have been much too busy to send one earlier. They
didn't have time to warn the cabin crew either.
>>
>>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>>No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report running
>>to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
>>you're hinting.
>
>Nothing sinister, just plain old.... Did they simply run out of fuel ?

Not according to newspaper reports. If the fuel had been that
low they would have know much, much, earlier.


-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

"turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message 
news:47934c87$0$13937$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> There was plenty of fuel on the plane, and the engines were running, 
> simply not responding to demands for more thrust.

I seem to recall that one of the on-board witnesses said that the engines 
were still 'roaring' whilst the plane was going down.   Could it be that the 
reverse thrusters, normally used to slow the aircraft once safely on the 
runway, had accidentally engaged early?

> Given that each engine is completely independent of the other, the problem 
> would seem to be very "upstream".
>
> 777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything 
> remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin, that 
> we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.

Some wag down at the pub yesterday came up with the scurrilous suggestion 
that a possible reason the co-pilot was at the controls was because the 
captain was back in the galley having a knee-trembler with the chief 
stewardess, and the coffee pot got knocked over during the ensuing 
turbulence and flooded the electrics.  Outrageous cynicism I say.  So long 
as he remembered to wear a black box, there should be no repercussions.

On a more serious note, this should be a major concern for the people 
(myself included) living under the flight paths and stacking areas for 
Heathrow, Gatwick and other airports.  Given the massive number of aircraft 
that take off and land every day in this country, statistically we are long 
overdue for a major incident and we have become complacent and forgetful of 
the potential dangers.  This one was a very near miss and a real wake up 
call.   What if the engines had failed a few miles further out ... the 
devastation to property and loss of life could have been of catastrophic 
proportions.

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:

DSP> Some wag down at the pub yesterday came up with the scurrilous 
DSP> suggestion that a possible reason the co-pilot was at the controls 
DSP> was because the captain was back in the galley having a knee-trembler 
DSP> with the chief stewardess, and the coffee pot got knocked over during 
DSP> the ensuing turbulence and flooded the electrics.  Outrageous 
DSP> cynicism I say.  So long as he remembered to wear a black box, there 
DSP> should be no repercussions.

Don't laugh about the coffee, it happened 
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.02.html#subj1


DSP> What if the engines had failed a few miles further out ... the 
DSP> devastation to property and loss of life could have been of 
DSP> catastrophic proportions.

Probably insignificant compared to road kill.  And if one came down, it is 
unlikely that your house would be underneath.  But if it was, you would 
no longer care.

-- 
Alan

( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
  However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right
  through. )

In article , 
edward@genghis0.demon.co.uk had it:

> In message <fmvcvl$5he$1@aioe.org>, Prai Jei 
>  writes
> >Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
> >space-time continuum:
> >
> >> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
> >> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
> >> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
> >
> >That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
> >plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
> >the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.

It is clear that the captain left control with the first officer, who 
was, routinely, landing the plane.  To have swapped control could 
have lost them 2 seconds, which may well have caused them to crash on 
a road, rather than landing inelegantly but safely inside the airport 
permiter.  Making radio calls would simply not have figured as a 
priority.

> >> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
> >No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report running
> >to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
> >you're hinting.
> 
> Nothing sinister, just plain old.... Did they simply run out of fuel ?
 
It is reported that 10 tonnes remains on board, which is normal for 
an inter-continental flight.  This fuel is being removed before 
moving the plane, for safetly reasons.


-- 
David

In article , 
edward@genghis0.demon.co.uk had it:

> In message <fmvcvl$5he$1@aioe.org>, Prai Jei 
>  writes
> >Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
> >space-time continuum:
> >
> >> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
> >> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
> >> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
> >That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
> >plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
> >the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.

It is clear that the captain left control with the first officer, who 
was (routinely) landing the plane.  To have swapped control would 
have taken a couple of seconds which might have made the difference 
between flopping inside the airport perimeter and crashing on a road.  
Making radio calls would not have figured as a priority.

> >> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
> >No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report running
> >to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
> >you're hinting.
> 
> Nothing sinister, just plain old.... Did they simply run out of fuel ?

It is reported that 10 tonnes of fuel remain, which is being removed 
before the plane is moved to a hangar.

-- 
David

turnitup wrote:
> 
> Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
> > In message <Lwtkj.55939$A62.43277@fe06.news.easynews.com>, Chief Collard
> >  writes
> >>
> >> "turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message
> >> news:4791ecab$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>
> >>> It will be interesting to find out what caused this,
> >>
> >> Wot reely, reely caused it wos them stupid pilots not being able to tork
> >> dumb to any BBC reporters wot had been seconded to the story.
> >>
> >
> > As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
> > there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
> > yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
> >
> > I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
> >
> 
> There was plenty of fuel on the plane, and the engines were running,
> simply not responding to demands for more thrust. Given that each engine
> is completely independent of the other, the problem would seem to be
> very "upstream".
> 
> 777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything
> remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin,
> that we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.

I think someone forgot to put a shilling in the meter.

-- 
... when we came back, late, from the hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed...
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

turnitup wrote:
> Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

<snip>

>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>>
>
> There was plenty of fuel on the plane, and the engines were running,
> simply not responding to demands for more thrust. Given that each
> engine is completely independent of the other, the problem would seem
> to be very "upstream".
>
> 777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything
> remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin,
> that we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.

Agreed. Aviation in general is incredibly reliable. Assuming recommended 
servicing procedures are followed that is.

-- 

SB

Steve Brooks wrote:
> turnitup wrote:

>> 777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything
>> remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin,
>> that we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.
> 
> Agreed. Aviation in general is incredibly reliable. Assuming recommended 
> servicing procedures are followed that is.
> 

Yes, and that is why the carrier is so important. I personally think BA 
trades on an outmoded reputation. I wouldn't trust them. We always fly 
Continental to the US.

These incidents, however, really only highlight the safety of aviation. 
Just think, a 737 takes off every 5 seconds somewhere in the world, 
including 2nd and 3rd world countries. When was the last time one came 
down? And 737s are flawed aircraft.

In article <fmvcvl$5he$1@aioe.org>, Prai Jei
 wrote:

>Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
>space-time continuum:
>
>> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
>> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
>> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
>That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
>plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
>the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.
> 
>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report running
>to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
>you're hinting.

An excellend summary is to be found at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3216746.ece

-- 
charles

In article , 
sardines@purse-seine.net says...
 
> Probably insignificant compared to road kill.  And if one came down, it is 
> unlikely that your house would be underneath.  But if it was, you would 
> no longer care.
> 
> 
Eh? You cunt. FFS how many more morons on this ng?
-- 
Thar's gold in them thar hills

Dave (Sgt. Pepper) wrote:
> 
> On a more serious note, this should be a major concern for the people 
> (myself included) living under the flight paths and stacking areas for 
> Heathrow, Gatwick and other airports.  Given the massive number of 
> aircraft that take off and land every day in this country, statistically 
> we are long overdue for a major incident and we have become complacent 
> and forgetful of the potential dangers.  This one was a very near miss 
> and a real wake up call.   What if the engines had failed a few miles 
> further out ... the devastation to property and loss of life could have 
> been of catastrophic proportions.
> 
Absolutely.  I would never buy a house under a flight path, just because 
of the noise, never mind the safety issues, however much cheaper it 
might be than a house elsewhere.

I have every sympathy for anyone who moved into such a house before the 
airport came into major use.

In the case of Heathrow, commercial operations began in 1946, and for 
Gatwick even earlier in 1936.  By the end of the 60s both were flying 
VC10s regularly which should be enough to warn anyone about noise.

If you bought your house in the last 40 years - well, you made your choice.

Andy

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:51:35 +0000, Edward Cowling London UK
 wrote:

> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said 
> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft, 
> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.

Seems reasonable.  "Aviate, navigate, communicate" is drummed into
every pilot from the beginning of training.  Flying the airplane is
infinitely more important than is talking on the radio.

How long do you think it took to cover those two miles?  Standard
landing speed of the B-777 is 150 kt, 175 mph.  That means that those
two miles took less than 40 seconds to cover.

> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.

Certainly.  There will be a report of several hundred pages and miles
of column-inches in newspapers, blogs, and industry magazines, not to
count all the memos that will fly, particularly at the airline's
insurers.

Mary "Trees will die for this"
-- 
Mary Shafer   Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, BrianE wrote:

B>  
B> > Probably insignificant compared to road kill.  And if one came down, it is 
B> > unlikely that your house would be underneath.  But if it was, you would 
B> > no longer care.
B> > 
B> > 
B> Eh? You cunt. FFS how many more morons on this ng?
B> 


I have male genitalia.

What's a FFS and what is a ng?  Are they something related to female 
genitals?

Please repost as your post was mostly unintelligible. The intelligible bit 
was factually incorrect and in no way related to the subject header.

-- 
Alan

( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
  However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right
  through. )

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:39:16 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)"  wrote:

>How long do you think it took to cover those two miles?  Standard
>landing speed of the B-777 is 150 kt, 175 mph.  That means that those
>two miles took less than 40 seconds to cover.

That is exactly the time quoted in a British newspaper report.
So at least some of the reporting seems to be knowledgable.


-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:16:01 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
 wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:39:16 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
> Shafer)"  wrote:
> 
> >How long do you think it took to cover those two miles?  Standard
> >landing speed of the B-777 is 150 kt, 175 mph.  That means that those
> >two miles took less than 40 seconds to cover.
> 
> That is exactly the time quoted in a British newspaper report.
> So at least some of the reporting seems to be knowledgable.

That's encouraging, even though it's a really simple calculation.

Mary "There's a certain amount of rounding in it, too"
-- 
Mary Shafer   Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:59:23 GMT, "Chief Collard"
 wrote:

> <tripe ignored>

For uk.local. readers.

You have posted to a special newsgroup set up by
the the NuLabour Government to plug the gaps created by 
the abysmal failure of the Psychiatric Care in the Community Policy. 
which was implemented by the last Tory Government. This
policy was  not only continued but also expanded by this 
NuLabour Government. 
 
The uk.local hierarchy was devised to provide an outlet for
individuals who would otherwise be spending their days sitting
at home wearing an aluminium foil hat waiting for a full moon
to rise. It was hoped that this would reduce the incidence
of nutters out there howling at the moon and frightening the
shit out of their neighbours. Another of HMGs aims and 
objectives was to provide a distraction to take their minds
of the problem of who they were next going to knife to death.
Unfortunately, this group has been taken over by the 
articulate lower middle classes who have succeeding in 
driving HMGs target audience away. Independent research has
shown that it was the amount and quality of the inane drivel,
called small talk which the middle classes are adept at, which
had the effect of doing their heads in. They left to protect what 
was left of their sanity. This has happened to the whole of uk.local.
hierarchy.  This newsgroup in particular is a very good example 
of another HMG failure

I trust this post will help guide you in your future dealings with this
newsgroup.

Thank you.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:30:04 +0000, turnitup posted:

>Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
>> In message <Lwtkj.55939$A62.43277@fe06.news.easynews.com>, Chief Collard 
>>  writes
>>>
>>> "turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message
>>> news:4791ecab$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> It will be interesting to find out what caused this,
>>>
>>> Wot reely, reely caused it wos them stupid pilots not being able to tork
>>> dumb to any BBC reporters wot had been seconded to the story.
>>>
>> 
>> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said 
>> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft, 
>> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
>> 
>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>> 
>
>There was plenty of fuel on the plane, and the engines were running, 
>simply not responding to demands for more thrust. Given that each engine 
>is completely independent of the other, the problem would seem to be 
>very "upstream".

Sounds like an Airbus failure mode, not like a Boeing one.

>777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything 
>remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin, 
>that we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.

-- 
WCdnE

Oleg Lego wrote:

> Sounds like an Airbus failure mode, not like a Boeing one.
> 
>> 777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything 
>> remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin, 
>> that we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.
> 

More idle speculation I know, but I won't be surprised if this is traced 
to a BA maintenance failure.

"Peter Duncanson (BrE)"  wrote in message 
news:t8m6p3ddmm8rlnr3gomalihdh2gsbolk3s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:02:00 +0000, Edward Cowling London UK
>  wrote:
>
>>In message <fmvcvl$5he$1@aioe.org>, Prai Jei
>> writes
>>>Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
>>>space-time continuum:
>>>
>>>> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
>>>> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
>>>> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
>>>That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
>>>plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words 
>>>from
>>>the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.
>
> According to a report in The Times the captain did send a mayday
> message as soon as the plane touched the grass. Both he and the
> copilot would have been much too busy to send one earlier. They
> didn't have time to warn the cabin crew either.
>>>
>>>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>>>No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report 
>>>running
>>>to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
>>>you're hinting.
>>
>>Nothing sinister, just plain old.... Did they simply run out of fuel ?
>
> Not according to newspaper reports. If the fuel had been that
> low they would have know much, much, earlier.
>
>
> -- 
> Peter Duncanson, UK

Unless the information sysytem from the tanks were faulty
perhaps because it came from China it FELT full but really
it needed a top up
G
> (in alt.usage.english)

"turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message 
news:47946c74$0$8419$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Oleg Lego wrote:
>
>> Sounds like an Airbus failure mode, not like a Boeing one.
>>
>>> 777's are fantastically reliable aircraft, there hasn't been anything 
>>> remotely like this with them before. I think, if there is a gremlin, 
>>> that we should be grateful it has been discovered in this manner.
>>
>
> More idle speculation I know, but I won't be surprised if this is traced 
> to a BA maintenance failure.

Or in China which doesn't have a very good record for plane crashes?

Roger

"Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in message 
news:C7t8eLB3eykHFwkO@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <Lwtkj.55939$A62.43277@fe06.news.easynews.com>, Chief Collard 
>  writes
>>
>>"turnitup" <same@same> wrote in message
>>news:4791ecab$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>> It will be interesting to find out what caused this,
>>
>>Wot reely, reely caused it wos them stupid pilots not being able to tork
>>dumb to any BBC reporters wot had been seconded to the story.
>>
>
> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said there 
> was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft, yet now 
> we're told power went 2 miles out.

FFS, how did you come up with this observation? Did you ride the 2 miles on 
your bike to see how long it took? Did you also carry your bloody mobile 
phone and see if you had enough time to call home (control room!) to tell 
them you were in trouble?

> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.

Not from you.

> -- 
> Edward Cowling    "Must go - Got to rub lard on the Cat's boil !"

Try rubbing your fucking head and see if you can massage whatever passes for 
a brain in there. "Power went 2 miles out." Indeed!

"Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in message 
news:19bR$aCvd0kHFwjM@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <JoHkj.50555$Hc3.1875@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, Steve Brooks 
> <steveb@postmaster.invalid> writes
>>[cross-posting removed]
>>
>>Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>>
>>My money's on a computer system failure.
>>
>
> Looking at the damage (pictures on BBC website) it seems a miracle there 
> was no hint of a fire.
>
> My own personal guess for what it's worth.... they ran out of fuel.

My own personal guess is if they used you for a dipstick you would show up 
quite wet. For what it's worth.

"Edward Cowling London UK"  wrote in message 
news:3NyRjACIZ0kHFwhB@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <fmvcvl$5he$1@aioe.org>, Prai Jei 
>  writes
>>Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
>>space-time continuum:
>>
>>> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
>>> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
>>> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
>>That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
>>plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words 
>>from
>>the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.
>>
>>> I have a feeling there is a lot more to come out on this story.
>>No doubt there's a lot more to come out - I can see the final report 
>>running
>>to several thousand pages - but not necessarily anything sinister like
>>you're hinting.
>
> Nothing sinister, just plain old.... Did they simply run out of fuel ?

Probably as much as you ran out of grey matter.

Tit.

On Jan 20, 10:01 am, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:

> >Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
> >space-time continuum:
>
> >> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
> >> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,
> >> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
> >That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
> >plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
> >the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.

> An excellend summary is to be found at
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3216746.ece

The very first news to come out reported that a ground crew member
claimed the pilot said both
Primary Flight Displays suddenly went black.  Since the air crew is
not allowed to make any
comments while the AAIB is investigating, that item was quickly
dropped.  Or maybe it wasn't
correct.  Anyway, the AAIB doesn't mention any of that yet.   Sounds
quite likely to be a software/
control system bug, maybe in handling a power glitch of some kind.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

On Feb 2, 4:32 pm, Ken Tough  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 10:01 am, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
> > >Edward Cowling London UK set the following eddies spiralling through the
> > >space-time continuum:
>
> > >> As we're talking about this incident. The original news reports said
> > >> there was no emergency message to the control room from the aircraft,> > >> yet now we're told power went 2 miles out.
> > >That's less than a minute before impact. Priority is getting ones battle
> > >plan in order, no time to radio a message. Any potentially final words from
> > >the crew can be left on the in-flight recorder.
> > An excellend summary is to be found at
>
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3216746.ece
>
> The very first news to come out reported that a ground crew member
> claimed the pilot said both
> Primary Flight Displays suddenly went black.  Since the air crew is
> not allowed to make any
> comments while the AAIB is investigating, that item was quickly
> dropped.  Or maybe it wasn't
> correct.  Anyway, the AAIB doesn't mention any of that yet.   Sounds
> quite likely to be a software/
> control system bug, maybe in handling a power glitch of some kind.

Or then again, maybe ice in the fuel...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120191816911237261.html?mod=googlenews_wsj