AAIB BA38 B777 Initial Report Update 23 January 2008
Pinkman,
Just looked up Aeroshell, Jet A-1 freezes at -47deg C. We don't know how G-YMMM was refuelled, could have been supplied from more than one bowser/refuelling point. Fuel samples should have been retained and can be tested and probably has been.
Just looked up Aeroshell, Jet A-1 freezes at -47deg C. We don't know how G-YMMM was refuelled, could have been supplied from more than one bowser/refuelling point. Fuel samples should have been retained and can be tested and probably has been.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can the theories about fuel waxing etc. be divorced from the GE90 AD issue - while I'm prepared to entertain a fuel temp scenario for this accident, as mentioned above the GE issue was freezing in PNEUMATIC lines, not fuel lines. A very different phenomon, basically. So the mechanism by which fuel waxing, if it occurred, would cause a thrust loss/engine abnormality isn't clear. Well, not to me.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 81
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ps3 (or P30) air line is a primary means of determining the limits to fuel flow (max & min) that the engine can instantaneously tolerate. The fuel flow must stay between these limits: Too much fuel, and a surge or overtemp may occur; and too little flow, a lean blowout (flameout) is likely.
Thus you can see a blocked air line causes the control to think the engine is at a lower-than-actual setting, and may thus deliver less fuel than the engine needs to stay alive.
Think of it as maintaining the fuel/air ratio within safe bounds.
Thus you can see a blocked air line causes the control to think the engine is at a lower-than-actual setting, and may thus deliver less fuel than the engine needs to stay alive.
Think of it as maintaining the fuel/air ratio within safe bounds.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldlae,
RP-3 (Jet fuel No3, the Chinese version of Jet A-1) actually freezes much lower than conventional A-1 (-52 C or so). This is the only thing that makes me question the fuel hypothesis. But as the Boeing article points out, pour point is actually the more relevant characteristic.
The plot, or maybe the fuel, thickens!
RP-3 (Jet fuel No3, the Chinese version of Jet A-1) actually freezes much lower than conventional A-1 (-52 C or so). This is the only thing that makes me question the fuel hypothesis. But as the Boeing article points out, pour point is actually the more relevant characteristic.
The plot, or maybe the fuel, thickens!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time Tables
Does anybody know of a site that can do an historic analysis of flights leaving from Beiging on the same day as BA38?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Filter failure and clogging is a known issue since long before airplanes took off. I would be very surprised if any single failure tolerant designed airliner today doesn't have a filter bypass and warning system in place in all key areas of fluid transfer.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About same route and time outbounds PEK on 17/01
Full list:
http://www.flightstats.com/go/Flight...ate=2008-01-17
Full list:
http://www.flightstats.com/go/Flight...ate=2008-01-17
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Marion, South Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I ask please?
As I understand it, fuel in the wing and centre tanks is kept unpressurised.
"Commencement of waxing" occurs at a certain minus temperature!
Does the pressurizing of the fuel between the first series fuel pumps/oil heat exchangers and the engine actually change the characteristics at which waxing would commence/diminish?
As an example, water boils at 100 degree Celsius at sea level IIRC.
By raising the pressure, the temperature of when water boils also rises.
Does pressurizing of the fuel change any "waxing conditions/characteristics?"
Regards
Mike McInerney
As I understand it, fuel in the wing and centre tanks is kept unpressurised.
"Commencement of waxing" occurs at a certain minus temperature!
Does the pressurizing of the fuel between the first series fuel pumps/oil heat exchangers and the engine actually change the characteristics at which waxing would commence/diminish?
As an example, water boils at 100 degree Celsius at sea level IIRC.
By raising the pressure, the temperature of when water boils also rises.
Does pressurizing of the fuel change any "waxing conditions/characteristics?"
Regards
Mike McInerney
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me preface this with the following:
1. I am not a pilot.
2. I am not an engineer.
3. I am not an expert.
4. I happen to work with solvents and other Kerosene related products.
None of the above matters really, just don't want to set myself up for a fall.
I DO NOT believe these fuel theories, for one reason and one reason alone... I cannot believe that in the 10 (or 12) years that the 777 has been in the air that this is the first occasion that this has happened.
Look, flying from Beijing to London may be a cold route, but can somebody tell me if it is the coldest? Surely the Boeing engineers over-engineered the fuel system to take account and over-compensate for these situations?
I think fuel is an easy speculation (one which was being bandied about by people who have since ended up in the WAGs thread), c'mon people, tax those expert brains of yours!
Lacking the necessary expertise in this area, I more inclined to think it was an electromechanical failure of some sort.
1. I am not a pilot.
2. I am not an engineer.
3. I am not an expert.
4. I happen to work with solvents and other Kerosene related products.
None of the above matters really, just don't want to set myself up for a fall.
I DO NOT believe these fuel theories, for one reason and one reason alone... I cannot believe that in the 10 (or 12) years that the 777 has been in the air that this is the first occasion that this has happened.
Look, flying from Beijing to London may be a cold route, but can somebody tell me if it is the coldest? Surely the Boeing engineers over-engineered the fuel system to take account and over-compensate for these situations?
I think fuel is an easy speculation (one which was being bandied about by people who have since ended up in the WAGs thread), c'mon people, tax those expert brains of yours!
Lacking the necessary expertise in this area, I more inclined to think it was an electromechanical failure of some sort.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Far East
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I DO NOT believe these fuel theories, for one reason and one reason alone... I cannot believe that in the 10 (or 12) years that the 777 has been in the air that this is the first occasion that this has happened."
I was flying a 747 that morning across Russia and Germany, landing in LHR at 0500am from the Far East. I have never had to decend to a lower FL in order to increase my fuel temperatue in 25 years of jet flying. That particular morning I had to go down for the last hour of cruise to FL250 before my fuel temp began to warm up. Every other jet in my vicinity that day also decended for the same reasons and some were unable to decend as low as requested. IE Qantas, Malasian and Thai Air) There was an unusually cold air mass over S Russia and Germany that day so it could well have been the cause of the 777s problems.
I was flying a 747 that morning across Russia and Germany, landing in LHR at 0500am from the Far East. I have never had to decend to a lower FL in order to increase my fuel temperatue in 25 years of jet flying. That particular morning I had to go down for the last hour of cruise to FL250 before my fuel temp began to warm up. Every other jet in my vicinity that day also decended for the same reasons and some were unable to decend as low as requested. IE Qantas, Malasian and Thai Air) There was an unusually cold air mass over S Russia and Germany that day so it could well have been the cause of the 777s problems.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chambudzi, I have had to do that in a -400 (although not as low, 'cause we still had a long way to go - N of Nikolayevsk), and speed up and cycle the speedbrakes to increase hot hyd fluid flow through the fuel/hyd tank cooler. Didn't seem to have much effect later on over China, though.
I'm sure fuel low temp is stored in the hard memory of the 777.
A question for the kerosene expert above: does increased flow rate in cold-soaked fuel cause a greater propensity for any water particles in suspension to form ice crystals upon hitting the face of a filter or pump casing? ie: if the EEC's commanded more thrust and hence increased fuel flow, could this cause instantaneous increase in ice crystal formation?
I have had it explained to me once that a filter face can cause a multitude of microscopic points of decreased pressure perpendicular to the direction of flow, much as we all learned during fluid dynamics with a varying pipe diameter.
I'm sure fuel low temp is stored in the hard memory of the 777.
A question for the kerosene expert above: does increased flow rate in cold-soaked fuel cause a greater propensity for any water particles in suspension to form ice crystals upon hitting the face of a filter or pump casing? ie: if the EEC's commanded more thrust and hence increased fuel flow, could this cause instantaneous increase in ice crystal formation?
I have had it explained to me once that a filter face can cause a multitude of microscopic points of decreased pressure perpendicular to the direction of flow, much as we all learned during fluid dynamics with a varying pipe diameter.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting quote from the link posted by go-si :
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...lar_story.html
Doesn't prove it didn't happen.
There always has to be a first time.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...lar_story.html
A review of the service history of transport airplane operations worldwide for the past 40 years does not show a single reported incident of restricted fuel flow because of low fuel tank temperatures.
There always has to be a first time.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't the fuel lines contain filters? Could these have become progressively clogged with wax/ice during flight?
If the blockage is large enough, the filters are bypassed, but note that these pressure sensors should give a warning well in advance of the actual (bypass) event.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno if it was mentioned before but out of curiosity......... Bearing in mind Heathrow usually has 20 or 30 knots on or near the nose at a thousand feet for that end, it's a pity it wasn't an Airbus instead. Groundspeed mini would have thrown on more than a few knots at a thousand feet through into late finals and an Airbus suffering similar fate might have made it to the runway.
Don't think the 777 has and Vapp additive does it?
Don't think the 777 has and Vapp additive does it?
