Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What could have caused both engines to fail?
The Telegraph UK ^

Posted on 01/19/2008 6:36:09 AM PST by barryg

1. Birds

Could birds have got into the engine? "Bird Strike" is a well-known problem in aviation. Even a few birds could break a component which would be sucked into the rest of the engine. # Co-pilot saved stricken Heathrow airliner

They can also interrupt the airflow, which is vital. The damage would depend on how many had been ingested.

Accident investigators search the area for debris from the crashed jet Accident investigators search the surrounding area for debris from the crashed jet

The strange sound of the engine has given this theory some credence. But Heathrow is regarded as one of the safest airports in the country as far as bird strike is concerned and there have been no reports of any feathers being found.

John Ling, the head of transport at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, advised caution: "While bird strikes can cause considerable damage, they don't normally have such a dramatic impact."

2. Fuel contamination

This emerged as a strong contender last night following the release of the investigators' report. advertisement

Industry insiders have suggested that a contaminant, possibly water, may have leaked into the fuel tank and caused the engines to fail.

Pilots believe it is possible that as the plane descended, ice on the wings thawed into slush and then seeped into the engines. It is also possible that any contamination may have occurred during fuelling.

3. Electrical failure

This is still a possibility and one which will be closely examined by the investigators, who will find vital clues from the flight recorder, evidence from the control tower and the pilot's own testimony.

4. Computer failure

Aircraft rely heavily on computer systems and a sudden failure would cause serious problems.

This was dismissed by David Learmount, the operations and safety editor of Flight International magazine. "There is not just one computer, there are a whole series of back-ups," he said. "It is like a lift, which does not have one cable but has four. All critical systems must have back-ups."

5. Boeing 777 design fault

Could there be a fundamental problem with the airliner? There have been reports of about a dozen incidents of electrical systems overheating.

But the Boeing 777 is regarded as one of the safest aircraft in the air. There are currently 667 in service and, until Thursday, the planes had not been involved in a serious incident.

"These things have been flying for a long time, the fact that the fuselage stayed intact is a testimony to the reliability of the aircraft," said Mr Ling.

6. Accidental jamming of onboard systems by police because the Prime Minister was nearby

A far-fetched theory which suggests that the police may have blocked mobile phones in the area as the Prime Minister's motorcade drove past. This in turn would, it is claimed, have created a systems failure on a plane overhead. This is unlikely to the point of impossibility.

"I am sure other people would have noticed and more than one plane would have come down," said Mr Ling.

7. Human error

Did the pilot make a fatal error on approach? At Kegworth in 1989, a pilot facing engine failure shut down the wrong one, leaving the plane without power.

This seems unlikely. John Coward, the senior first officer who landed the aircraft, had 11 years' experience on Boeing 777s and 15 as a pilot. Peter Burkill, the captain, had 20 years' experience with BA. Given the length of the flight it is normal practice for the pilot, senior first officer and first officer to share duties. They were also landing at BA's home airport.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: aerospace; aviation; ba; birds; birdstrike; lhr; planecrash
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

1 posted on 01/19/2008 6:36:11 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: barryg
When both engines simultaneously fail on a aircraft, the first thought usually is ‘did they run out of fuel’?

Note there was no fire at the crash site.

2 posted on 01/19/2008 6:42:55 AM PST by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg

“Accidental jamming of onboard systems by police because the Prime Minister was nearby.”

If that was the cause, no one will ever admit it.

I notice that one of the possible causes is fuel contamination. Since the flight originated from Beijing, that is my prediction, although it seems doubtful that both fuel lines would beceome clogged at the same time. Possibly, they simply ran out of fuel.


3 posted on 01/19/2008 6:44:55 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg

What, no speculation on passengers turning on their cell phones???


4 posted on 01/19/2008 6:46:52 AM PST by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg

Very good post. My thoughts lean toward fuel.


5 posted on 01/19/2008 6:48:34 AM PST by abseaman (The future is just your imagination reincarnaterd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg
I think it was contaminated fuel.

As fuel was used during flight, it was replaced with air. It might have been this air, contaminating the remaining fuel, that got ingested into these two engines causing loss of power.

6 posted on 01/19/2008 6:49:15 AM PST by C210N (The television has mounted the most serious assault on Republicanism since Das Kapital.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/main.jhtml?xml=/travel/2008/01/19/etheath419.xml
7 posted on 01/19/2008 6:50:33 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent

Me too ... there is too much redundancy for both engines to go out simultaneously, unless there is a common cause, ran out of fuel. Long flight, so the odds are high that fuel use, or loss in flight may be the cause. A fuel leak undetected by the computers would do that ... No fire, points the finger.


8 posted on 01/19/2008 6:52:54 AM PST by Tarpon (Ignorance, the most expensive commodity produced by mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

It’s hard to believe they weren’t warned that they weren’t low on fuel.


9 posted on 01/19/2008 6:55:08 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: barryg

I take it that there was some kind of a problem at the airport?


10 posted on 01/19/2008 6:56:11 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Mike Huckabee: If Gomer Pyle and Hugo Chavez had a love child this is who it would be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg
They ran out of fuel or got too low and with the engines unspooled. That’s my guess and I’m sticking to it (or them at any rate).

I like possibility no, 6, though, for it’s simplicity. I think radio interference is unpredictable enough (what may block it, what may amplify it etc...) to serve as a cause. At any rate I doubt the cause will rise above something mundane.

11 posted on 01/19/2008 6:57:21 AM PST by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg
Could have been a sensor or software error hidden during testing. Who tests out of fuel? The fact both engines quit, no fire, I would start here. I believe these aircraft have active load balancing, shifting fuel from tank to tank as it’s used on a long flight to keep trim level and efficiency up.

May not be, but it would be the first thing I wrote down.

12 posted on 01/19/2008 6:59:04 AM PST by Tarpon (Ignorance, the most expensive commodity produced by mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent

The “ran out of fuel” option is the best.

Both engines hit the ground with damage that was strongly correlated to “no rotation/slow rotation at time of impact”. This implies a common fault mode.

Both engines fail + no fire + slow engine rotation at crash + no response from throttle = no fuel.

My gueas is that it could have been a liters-quarts conversion error in China.


13 posted on 01/19/2008 6:59:16 AM PST by HighWheeler (The higher the concentration of libs, the bigger the tragedy that follows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: barryg
There are currently 667 in service and, until Thursday, the planes had not been involved in a serious incident.

I'm glad they put that last plane into service.

14 posted on 01/19/2008 7:01:38 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
According to the beeb, "A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire."

'No thrust' on stricken BA plane
15 posted on 01/19/2008 7:02:13 AM PST by lump in the melting pot ("Wonderful theory. Wrong species." - Edward O. Wilson, an expert on ants, describing Marxism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent

My first guess would be fuel from the limited description given.

Given the limited info, I’m guessing that this is a sidebar to a more detailed story.


16 posted on 01/19/2008 7:02:19 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: barryg
It’s hard to believe they weren’t warned that they weren’t low on fuel.

A "you aren't low on fuel" warning would get pretty tedious on a long flight. /wisearse reply

17 posted on 01/19/2008 7:03:52 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler

What happens to a plane wreck?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7196208.stm

It will be removed from the runway and taken away to be broken up
The undamaged components will be sold as spares
Any scrap metal will be disposed of by a specialist


18 posted on 01/19/2008 7:06:04 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
"The “ran out of fuel” option is the best."

Back in the analog days, this would be the number 1 suspect. But in this digital age, I would look for a hidden software flaw as my prime suspect.
19 posted on 01/19/2008 7:07:32 AM PST by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: barryg
A far-fetched theory which suggests that the police may have blocked mobile phones in the area as the Prime Minister's motorcade drove past. This in turn would, it is claimed, have created a systems failure on a plane overhead. This is unlikely to the point of impossibility.

What? How can this be impossible. We've been told for years that cell phones and cd players could drop a plane straight outta the sky...you mean military grade jammmers can't? Who ever would have thought that?

20 posted on 01/19/2008 7:08:06 AM PST by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson