Pleasure
Thanks for the reply. Have read through thread and seen discussions on the meaningfulness of specifications, anxiety about FAME (and about the possibility that there is some unknown factor which isn't even tested for), questions over twin engine ops for the airframe/engine combo, but there seems to be no clear smoking gun.
This gave me the impression that the ('interim' ?) findings are based on plausibility: cold long flight, fuel starvation, there is water in fuel - so ice is a main suspect, where might it most likely accumulate ? Yes we can mimic that failure mode in the lab, so lets go with that one then as NFF will have implications.
If it's so plausible now mother nature has pointed it out to us why didn't the original design anticipate it and why is it so rare an occurrence ?
All very well to cover office walls with fault trees, cut-sets and 10 to the power of minus 9, but this surely should be cut and dried forensic engineering.
And I haven't got that impression from reading this thread (no headline claiming 'CRACKED IT').
Doesn't this one need putting to bed more firmly ? (..the issue, not me !).
As an after thought, has the fuel system on the 777's with alternative engine supplier demonstrated differences in design to explain why it is only RR ?
Last edited by Mr Optimistic; 2nd Aug 2009 at 00:01.
Reason: extra line about why only RR engines