Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

BA 777 Speculation Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.
View Poll Results: What cased the BA B777 crash at LHR?
Engine control computer failure
Low fuel temperature
Bird strike
Contaminated fuel
Pilot error
Passengers using cell phones
Electromagnetic pulse
Voters: 3465. This poll is closed

BA 777 Speculation Thread

Old 22nd Jan 2008, 07:57
  #401 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 35
Crossed Line! Crossed Line!!

I can't read the rest of the article through laughing so much.....

Jees, even beats the Daily Mail and its assertion that the plane missed the fence by inches.....

eman_resu is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 08:15
  #402 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 201
Faith restored...

The unpleasant bitchy and abusive tone of certain posters has been a big disappointment during this 777 caper.

But my faith in my fellow human is restored by noting that no less than a third of posters attribute the problems to Aliens. Nice work, people.
james ozzie is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 08:27
  #403 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Close to Lutecia
Posts: 77
Ok guys you can all stop all that wild speculation .
Here is what REALLLLY hapenned :

January 19, 2008

British Prime Minister Targeted In London Air Crash, Says Russia

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Russian Intelligence Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and numerous leaders of the United Kingdom’s business community were ‘targeted’ in a failed assassination attempt which instead of downing the aircraft due to take the British Leader on his first state visit to China instead brought down a British Airways 777 upon its landing approach to London’s Heathrow Airport.

According to these reports, Prime Minister Brown’s flight to China was delayed due to British billionaire Sir Richard Branson’s late arrival at Heathrow, as he was one of the many business leaders accompanying Brown to China, and which allowed the British Airways 777 flight from China to land first.

But, upon the British Airway 777’s attempt to land, and as examined by Russian Military Scientists, a ‘non-nuclear micro-burst’ electromagnetic pulse (EMP) was ‘fired’ which then caused a catastrophic engine failure due to loss of power causing that flight to plunge to the ground prior to reaching the runway.

These reports state the mistiming of the EMP device was likely due to its trigger mechanism being set to Heathrow Airports radio frequencies, and with the takeoff of the Prime Minister Brown’s plane delayed, and by the coincidence that the British Airway 777 flight landing was coming from China, the aircraft identifier codes transmitted to the device targeted the wrong aircraft causing it to crash instead of Brown’s.

Kremlin sources further speculate that the assassination of the British Prime Minister, and should it have been successful, would have been blamed on dissident factions in Russia supporting President Putin as tensions between the two nations have risen to crisis levels over the past few months over many issues, including Russia’s forced closing of two British Counsel Offices which led the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, to state to his Parliament, “We saw similar actions during the cold war, but thought they had been put behind us.”

To the overriding concern of Kremlin, however, is that this plot against the British Prime Minister would further aggravate World tensions as Russian is standing against the West in their plan to recognize Kosovo outside of the United Nations structure for doing so, and which Moscow has warned their will be ‘grave consequences’ to be paid should Kosovo be successful in their breaking away from Serbia.

Equally important, and should this plot had been successful, it would have killed the gas pipeline deal just concluded yesterday between President Putin and Bulgaria, and which now leaves Russia holding the ‘keys’ to Western Europe’s natural gas supply.

In quick response to the Western Nations, whose machinations the Kremlin believes is behind this plot, Russia’s Military Chief of Staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky, issued this warning, "We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons."

General Baluyevsky was, undoubtedly, and as these reports say, issuing his warning to Israel, and who many in the Kremlin believe stands the most to gain by aggravating the tensions between Russia and Britain, especially in light of this past weeks failed attempt by Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, to make Moscow stop shipping nuclear fuel to Iran.

Most frightening of these reports, though, are the statements of the FSB Intelligence Analysts that there is a ‘100 percent certainty’ that new such moves against President Putin and Russia will be forthcoming in the weeks, if not days, ahead.

© January 19, 2008 EU and US all rights reserved.
routechecker is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 08:39
  #404 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,549
As a non pilot can someone out there give a reason why if Boeing didn't think this accident was caused by anything else other than running out of fuel , it has not grounded every 777 in service??
priapism, your medical condition is obviously affecting your ability to read the 30 odd times that question has been answered previously or is it that you have been too idle to read the all the posts regarding the incident?

You're kept high for long, and told to keep speed up until 4 miles or so. That's 1200 feet. To slow down to approach speed will take you 4-600 feet, which means that you won't leave idle until between 600 and 800. That's exactly what happened.

At LHR you are not kept 'high for long'. When given descent to an altitude after the last holding fix you are given 'track miles to run' and that distance is normall spot on for a CDA. 160kts. to 4 DME means that if I take landing flap and close the thrust levers at 1500' I will be slowed just after 4DME and stable by 1000'. Calm days and light weights then maybe just after and if a stiff breeze on the day in question then quite easily. Please read the many post explaining that in normal circumstances BA SOPs mean the aircraft is fully configured with aproach power set and at the correct speed at 1000'


BA SOPs F25 in normal circumstances would be selected at about 1500 which equates to approximately 5 DME
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 08:49
  #405 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colton, CA
Age: 64
Posts: 129
The Politically Correct Term Is "Undocumented Worker"

A very high percentage of respondents to the poll felt that aliens were responsible for the 777 mishap at LHR.

My question is, would these be LEGAL or ILLEGAL aliens? How many illegal aliens would have to be stowaways in a specific wheel well before the weight and balance would be compromised?

Remember back in the 1950s when college kids used to see if they could set a Guiness record for the number of them who could be wedged into a phone booth? Maybe some of these illegal aliens are attempting something similar . . .

Okay . . . so much for the B.S.

In all seriousness, and without reading up thoroughly on the incident, could wind sheer have been a possible cause? Has LHR ever had a problem with that?

ONTPax is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 08:49
  #406 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 166
As a matter of interest, which bus powers the lights on the 777 nose gear ?
Arctaurus is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:03
  #407 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,438
Reader comment below Sandbank's photo link

Reader comment in Daily Mail below photos.
"If this plane was built in 2001, as reported, then the on-board computers would be running an old version of Windows. Have they virus checked them yet?"
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:15
  #408 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 101
A comment from the Daily Mail's "Caught on Camera" article:

If this plane was built in 2001, as reported, then the on-board computers would be running an old version of Windows. Have they virus checked them yet?

- George Mudie, Derby, UK

wince is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:25
  #409 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
.....could wind sheer have been a possible cause?
Hmmmmm.........diaphanous wind.

It needs some gusts to suggest that.

Maybe they could sue the pilots for sheer negligee.

(I'm taking bets on an edit. Anyone?)
acbus1 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:33
  #410 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Malmo
Posts: 19
If it`s Windows Vista then we know what brought her down. Let`s sue Bill Gates.
Ivanbogus is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:36
  #411 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
have any 777 pilots changed their ways below 10,000' since this accident?

just wondering.

And since when have 777's been called "tripplers". Oh you British!
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:48
  #412 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 59Nord
Posts: 45
Airbus landing?

Without knowledge about the 777. I say it has a spooky resemblence with the first A320 accident..
cap10lobo is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:55
  #413 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Outer Space
Posts: 272
OK, 10c worth here

The fuel issue, if the aircraft had indeed run out of fuel as some are speculating, then please explain why we had lighting issues on adjacent taxiways, runway CL and edge lighting, stated by BAA in our crisis briefings, that a large fuel spillage had caused this "electrical outage".
No, I'll give credence to the electrical scenario, something between the go-fast levers and the hair dryers went wrong or something caused interference.
Whatever went wrong, kudos to the drivers for getting it on the grass, and to the CC, you have my vote
slingsby is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 09:57
  #414 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
You surely mean in relation to the alien involvement in both incidents, right?
Re-Heat is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 10:01
  #415 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne, oz
Posts: 295
M, Mouse,

Sorry , as I mentioned I am a non pilot , just a mere paramedic who has just come off the back of an 80 hour 6 day working period including a 14 hour night shift last night , so I was not really motivated to read through the 340 odd long winded posts regarding this potentially disastrous event. Obviously I am not as idle as all those who have had the time to post long winded speculation regarding the cause. It is a hugely busy time of year for me .I have one day off tomorrow so I might find the time to trawl through them for an answer to my question before my next 6 day stint ( only 70 hours this time) so I was hoping someone out there could precis things for me.

Regards to all,

priapism is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 10:12
  #416 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 31
WAG's fodder

Apologies if this has been discussed already, but I have not had the time to read all posts.

I fly the 737 and on that aircraft a double generator failure looks awfuly like a double engine failure, i.e. almost identical associated systems drop off-line, cockpit is plunged into darkness and almost identical system failure annunciators illuminated. The best way to quickly tell the difference is a quick look at the N1 indications.

With a double generator failure it would be very easy to instinctively carry out the recall items for a double engine failure which involves moving both engine start levers to the cutoff position then back to the idle detent, thereby creating for yourself a double engine failure which would be unlikely to relight if on final approach.(I presume in the 777 the levers would be called engine control switches and the respective positions would be cutoff and run)

Would a 777 endorsed pilot be able to advise if it is possible to confuse a double electrical failure with a double engine failure. If so I see this as a possible scenario that could end up creating what we saw with this aircraft.
pig dog is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 10:13
  #417 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,549
OK priapism you are forgiven but you will appreciate that it becomes very tiresome seeing the same stuff repeated over and over again. A few of us who actually fly the thing are happy to answer sensible questions especially if the poster doesn't pretend to have knowledge which they don't have. When the same question is repeated regularly it does rather dent ones enthusiasm to reply!
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 10:18
  #418 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
And that 'interference' is detected by low-quality, unshielded analogue audio lines. If a cellphone is going to interfere with a sophisticated, shielded aircraft electronic systems, how come I can sit in front of my unshielded, plastic-cased, laptop PC, built for $200, use my cellphone within 20cm of it, and my BlackBerry, and power up my 25W Ham Radio, and the PC still does not crash? Oh, I nearly forgot, the laptop is talking to my WiFi at the same time.

But I can bring down a Boeing 777?
If you really hold an amateur radio licence, then you shouldn't even need to ask that question. Electromagnetic compatibility and the serious problems that a failure of it can cause is covered in all the licence syllabi from Foundation level onward.

It is not necessary to "crash" systems totally for radio frequencies to elicit unwanted responses. Neither is it necessarily the case that only one cellphone or other wireless device was involved. Nor that all the aircraft's equipment was necessarily functioning to original spec. Presumably something wasn't, or the entire incident would never have occurred at all.

Yes, RFI bringing down a modern, sophisticated aircraft is highly unlikely, but it can't be ruled out because your laptop staggers on....
DespairingTraveller is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 10:26
  #419 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6
Boeing A330;
Water Floating on Fuel/

Read on it gets better http://www.cnet.com.au/wireless/0,23...9285323,00.htm

Scarily insightful...
Oh Please is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2008, 10:33
  #420 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,300
As this is the silly (stupid) question thread are there any 777 avionics engineers that can tell us where the ARINC 629 bus to ARINC 429 bus converters are located and are they all powered by seperate and redundant power sources?
Since the engines failed to respond to manual input, I'd go out on a limb and say that databusses are not an issue here.

The EEC's and thrust levers are connected using analog stuff. The wiring is, of course, shielded from electrical interference. The thrust lever position sensors are "Rotary Variable Differential Transformers" ... The EEC's provide excitation for these.


The EEC's control the valves in the FMU (Fuel Metering Unit) by analog signals also.

Hope this helps.

(Edit). Re shielding... the EEC's are mounted on the left hand side of each engine. If a source of interference was emanating from the cabin, to get to the left engine, it would have to go through a very large chunk of engine and through the wall of an "electronic unit protection box" (The EEC is inside a box).
NSEU is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.