BA038 (B777) Thread
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oups, sorry for the confusion ...
"Water in fuel" messages were indeed mentionned a few times in the early pages of this thread. And they were not questionned. There seems to be a consensus that this is just a kind of "normal business", since the messages cleared.
Sorry, I don't have the courage to retrieve the references.
"Water in fuel" messages were indeed mentionned a few times in the early pages of this thread. And they were not questionned. There seems to be a consensus that this is just a kind of "normal business", since the messages cleared.
Sorry, I don't have the courage to retrieve the references.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl, US
Age: 84
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ba 038 777 Accident Remains Unresolved
I encourage each of the Professional Pilots to monitor this investigation. Months have passed and today there is no guidance or direction from the investigation which would tend to make our crews and passengers less likely to experience uncommanded non-responsiveness to the command for thrust.
It is now up to our sucessors flying the line every day to stand up and challenge the AAIB, NTSB, FAA, Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Air, etal. to put their head to the cause and effect. I have sent numerous communications to the US FAA and NTSB regarding the BA038 event. There has been absolutely no response from either agency.
The accident experienced by BA 038 should never have happened. It did happen. None of us know why. None of us have heard anything from our expert authorities regarding the elimination, mitigation, or recovery from the experience our BA crews had to deal with. Where is Boeing, Rolls Royce, FAA, NTSB, FAA, etal,?
I encourage all of the PPrune community to dig deep within and nudge, nay bully a little, your respective governmental authorities to get a move on. Winter is not that far away and it was winter which laid BA038 on the apron.
Tom
It is now up to our sucessors flying the line every day to stand up and challenge the AAIB, NTSB, FAA, Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Air, etal. to put their head to the cause and effect. I have sent numerous communications to the US FAA and NTSB regarding the BA038 event. There has been absolutely no response from either agency.
The accident experienced by BA 038 should never have happened. It did happen. None of us know why. None of us have heard anything from our expert authorities regarding the elimination, mitigation, or recovery from the experience our BA crews had to deal with. Where is Boeing, Rolls Royce, FAA, NTSB, FAA, etal,?
I encourage all of the PPrune community to dig deep within and nudge, nay bully a little, your respective governmental authorities to get a move on. Winter is not that far away and it was winter which laid BA038 on the apron.
Tom
Controversial, moi?
Your post strikes both a pompous and naïve chord.
The investigation is not duty bound to immediately publish every single finding nor explain their actions or methodology so that the media and internet pundits can dissect every detail in their usual ignorant and often downright stupid way.
When they have something constructive and helpful to say they will say it. So far they have nothing to add to what is known that would be of the remotest use.
It is quite pointless to waste time distracting busy people with pointless demands when there is nothing to be gained.
And, by the way, it is British Airways not British Air as so many Americans insist on calling us.
The investigation is not duty bound to immediately publish every single finding nor explain their actions or methodology so that the media and internet pundits can dissect every detail in their usual ignorant and often downright stupid way.
When they have something constructive and helpful to say they will say it. So far they have nothing to add to what is known that would be of the remotest use.
It is quite pointless to waste time distracting busy people with pointless demands when there is nothing to be gained.
And, by the way, it is British Airways not British Air as so many Americans insist on calling us.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse - he didn't say "publish every single finding" or "explain their actions or methodology".
He said "get a move on", and I think he has a point.
This page serves as a reminder of what the NTSB was doing to address the concern among pilots, passengers and the industry in general in the wake of another very perplexing accident which took years to resolve:
NTSB - American Airlines Flight 587
In particular, there were frequent investigation updates, and an intermediate Safety Recommendation (addressing one of the key contributing factors - probably enough to prevent a repetition) after 3 months.
As a non-pilot, I am not remotely bothered if this information is channeled directly to pilots and to others with a need-to-know in airlines, rather than to the press. It only takes one decent PR/media relations person to ensure that is handled properly. No criticism of anyone in my mind - just keen to hear that investigation is narrowing and the people we rely on at the front end of the aircraft have some idea how to avoid a repetition, as soon as possible.
He said "get a move on", and I think he has a point.
This page serves as a reminder of what the NTSB was doing to address the concern among pilots, passengers and the industry in general in the wake of another very perplexing accident which took years to resolve:
NTSB - American Airlines Flight 587
In particular, there were frequent investigation updates, and an intermediate Safety Recommendation (addressing one of the key contributing factors - probably enough to prevent a repetition) after 3 months.
As a non-pilot, I am not remotely bothered if this information is channeled directly to pilots and to others with a need-to-know in airlines, rather than to the press. It only takes one decent PR/media relations person to ensure that is handled properly. No criticism of anyone in my mind - just keen to hear that investigation is narrowing and the people we rely on at the front end of the aircraft have some idea how to avoid a repetition, as soon as possible.
Last edited by Leodis737; 7th Aug 2008 at 11:23.
Controversial, moi?
PR/Media relations are the bane of modern society. It is taken as read, at least as far as the AAIB is concerned, that they are doing all that is possible.
If they had any idea of how to avoid repitition we would have been told.
The incessant clamour for 'news' and the subsequent misreporting, analysis, misguided pressure and futile discussion is, in my opinion, why, both here and in the USA, we have government by spin not substance.
Edited for typo.
If they had any idea of how to avoid repitition we would have been told.
The incessant clamour for 'news' and the subsequent misreporting, analysis, misguided pressure and futile discussion is, in my opinion, why, both here and in the USA, we have government by spin not substance.
Edited for typo.
Last edited by M.Mouse; 7th Aug 2008 at 14:29.
I encourage each of the Professional Pilots to monitor this investigation.
Months have passed and today there is no guidance or direction from the investigation which would tend to make our crews and passengers less likely to experience uncommanded non-responsiveness to the command for thrust.
...stand up and challenge the AAIB, NTSB, FAA, Boeing, Rolls Royce, British Air, etal. to put their head to the cause and effect.
I have sent numerous communications to the US FAA and NTSB regarding the BA038 event. There has been absolutely no response from either agency.
AFAIK, there are no significant operational changes that have been mandated/suggested following the loss of G-YMMM. That doesn't mean there won't be any in the future if/when the root cause(s) of the accident are fully understood; in the meantime, we just have to be patient.
The AAIB, NTSB and others have to take a very broad outlook in situations such as these and that involves a large amount of dead-end investigation, conjecture and theorising. To make such ruminations public would a) slow down the progress of the investigation, b) lead to all sorts of unjustified speculation in the media and c) might lead to a reduction in flight safety if the diagnosis or the 'cure' were wrong at that time.
Just because those involved are not 'blogging' the BA38 on a daily basis doesn't mean that they aren't working hard on it. What do you want? "Today we initialised a Monte-Carlo simulation of the fuel dynamics in the inlet manifold; tomorrow we're checking the EEC wiring but not until after the pizza"?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PR/Media relations are the bain of modern society.
... I just don't think that all communications from the NTSB - or AAIB in this case - are spin. For example, I think a pilot reading the early releases from the NTSB on AA587 could probably have worked out how to prevent a repetition. Sure it took 3 years to get a Final Report published, and that was very acrimonious because of the huge financial implications for those involved. But the key safety information got out early.
In this case, the AAIB has been up-front with some updates and Special Bulletins. I just thought Precept had a point - it's fair enough for pilots and airlines in particular to keep asking for information from AAIB on this (AAIB can always quite fairly say 'nothing new to report') and since cold-related fuel flow issues are currently looking the most likely among a set of rather unlikely causes, the timing does matter.
PS: from other replies, it doesn't look as though those posting are far apart on this, just that views are being expressed strongly as usual
. I'll go back under my stone now.
You can't fix or ever really know an "extremely remote"
Ther effort now is to assess how probable a repeat could be.
Nobody would have said before it can't happen, but then again we should not have expected it to happen.
Ther effort now is to assess how probable a repeat could be.
Nobody would have said before it can't happen, but then again we should not have expected it to happen.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus you guys,
Obviously by now, they KNOW what happened. This is 2008. Obviously the implications are so uncomfortable that they're going to drag out this investigation ten years like they did TWA 800.
What I think happened (and it is just my opinion only) is that they are appalled at the fact the engines didn't respond to pilot input and the FADEC vender is going to release a software "update" to all 777 operators and you or I will never be told what caused these engines not to respond.
THIS IS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM in my humble opinion. I humbly ask those programers that know to anonymously post their knowledge to help aviation safety.
If you nerds ever wanted to be batman now is your chance.
Obviously by now, they KNOW what happened. This is 2008. Obviously the implications are so uncomfortable that they're going to drag out this investigation ten years like they did TWA 800.
What I think happened (and it is just my opinion only) is that they are appalled at the fact the engines didn't respond to pilot input and the FADEC vender is going to release a software "update" to all 777 operators and you or I will never be told what caused these engines not to respond.
THIS IS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM in my humble opinion. I humbly ask those programers that know to anonymously post their knowledge to help aviation safety.
If you nerds ever wanted to be batman now is your chance.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously the implications are so uncomfortable that they're going to drag out this investigation ten years like they did TWA 800.
You can give your humble opinion all you want, but most informed observers will await a report from the qualified individuals at the AAIB that actually rectifies any problem that may or may not exist fleetwide.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pacplyer, this from the AAIB Special Bulletin issued in May...
Hope this helps....
Parameters recorded on the Quick
Access Recorder, Flight Data Recorder and non‑volatile
memory from the Electronic Engine Controller (EEC)
indicate that the engine control system detected the
reduced fuel flow and commanded the fuel metering
valve to open fully. The fuel metering valve responded to
this command and opened fully but with no appreciable
change in the fuel flow to either engine.
Access Recorder, Flight Data Recorder and non‑volatile
memory from the Electronic Engine Controller (EEC)
indicate that the engine control system detected the
reduced fuel flow and commanded the fuel metering
valve to open fully. The fuel metering valve responded to
this command and opened fully but with no appreciable
change in the fuel flow to either engine.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair Re-Heat,
Very fair.
You place your faith in government examining themselves (bus=gov, imho)
I however, do not.
This thing stinks to high heaven, with the amount of time that has elapsed.
Somebody knows the truth.
Out with it already. The crew didn't do anything wrong, imho.
Very fair.
You place your faith in government examining themselves (bus=gov, imho)
I however, do not.
This thing stinks to high heaven, with the amount of time that has elapsed.
Somebody knows the truth.
Out with it already. The crew didn't do anything wrong, imho.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please,
Explain to my dumb brain sector8, how a certified RR engine has been commanded to full power via the FADEC and nothing happens.
Please forgive my obvious stupidity; I don't have an E&E but as I understand the relationship, the EEC may command full power, but it is up to the FADEC to honor or modify or reject that demand. Right?
Is my understanding of the sequence incorrect?
Do I not understand the sequential relationship between EEC and FADEC?
It is quite possible I am under a misconception because now we are delving into aerospace engineering and my specialty is airline transport.
How stupid it is that we sit around f*cking with this when the obvious solution is to engineer this airplane like the 747 with a physical cable to the FCU.
But maybe I'm just old school, and didn't have to worry about sh*t like a computer deciding I didn't know what the hell I was talking about as the PIC when in the moment of truth my nanosecond brain decided that all the f*cking computers in the world were wrong and I needed MAX POWER NOW!
You modern aviators are just amazing to me. You spend your lives living under the shadow of the HAL-9000 computer.
What do you think should happen in the spilt second that the PIC decides max power is needed? A computer vote? A cyber committee? A democracy?
Survey says?
Something is rotten with with this whole event, and nobody wants to admit that nothing is adding up......
Meanwhile, I'm not going to board a 777 or any scarebus or any other FADEC machine till this is sorted out.
All JMHO's
pac
Explain to my dumb brain sector8, how a certified RR engine has been commanded to full power via the FADEC and nothing happens.
Please forgive my obvious stupidity; I don't have an E&E but as I understand the relationship, the EEC may command full power, but it is up to the FADEC to honor or modify or reject that demand. Right?
Is my understanding of the sequence incorrect?
Do I not understand the sequential relationship between EEC and FADEC?
It is quite possible I am under a misconception because now we are delving into aerospace engineering and my specialty is airline transport.
How stupid it is that we sit around f*cking with this when the obvious solution is to engineer this airplane like the 747 with a physical cable to the FCU.
But maybe I'm just old school, and didn't have to worry about sh*t like a computer deciding I didn't know what the hell I was talking about as the PIC when in the moment of truth my nanosecond brain decided that all the f*cking computers in the world were wrong and I needed MAX POWER NOW!
You modern aviators are just amazing to me. You spend your lives living under the shadow of the HAL-9000 computer.
What do you think should happen in the spilt second that the PIC decides max power is needed? A computer vote? A cyber committee? A democracy?
Survey says?
Something is rotten with with this whole event, and nobody wants to admit that nothing is adding up......
Meanwhile, I'm not going to board a 777 or any scarebus or any other FADEC machine till this is sorted out.
All JMHO's
pac
Last edited by pacplyer; 8th Aug 2008 at 23:15. Reason: bad spelling
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pacplyer
You're peddaling the conspiracy theory route too much. It's wasted energy.
Don't forget that events with chances that are millions to 1 can happen.
Stay away from FADEC's then. See if anyone's bothered.
You're peddaling the conspiracy theory route too much. It's wasted energy.
Don't forget that events with chances that are millions to 1 can happen.
Stay away from FADEC's then. See if anyone's bothered.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. Fullwings about the flow simulation example...
I have learned (or was often reminded) that no simulation is really worth some real data. So what I would expect, if the situation is not clear by now (apparently it isn't), is that a bunch of aircraft of that type are being instrumented (sensors, etc) to provide the data that are missing today. If you cannot easily reproduce the event, at least be prepared to learn more, the next time something similar happens.
I have learned (or was often reminded) that no simulation is really worth some real data. So what I would expect, if the situation is not clear by now (apparently it isn't), is that a bunch of aircraft of that type are being instrumented (sensors, etc) to provide the data that are missing today. If you cannot easily reproduce the event, at least be prepared to learn more, the next time something similar happens.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pacplyer, you're being a bit unfair to the investigators.
TWA800 did not take 10 years. There was a Public Hearing after 17 months where all the main evidence was set out. Judge for yourself whether it was a useful exercise (NTSB Chairman's statement NTSB - Statement by Jim hall 12/12/97 and contents list NTSB - TWA 800 Public Hearing).
I am sure that the work to model the 777 fuel system and examine flight data is taking time for scientific reasons, not because industrial or political pressure is being brought to bear. It is quite possible there will be a big wrangle about liability etc later on, but I have confidence that as soon as the AAIB have narrowed the probable cause of BA38 down enough to be able to issue safety recommendations they will do so - they don't need to wait til the Final Report, and they would be judged harshly if they 'sat on' something important - I am sure they would not do that. As Precept said at the start of today's discussion, if it is looking likely to be cold-related and if BA38's exposure was unusual (I don't see why it has to be unique - other factors could have been involved which could recur) then it would be reasonable for AAIB to issue to recommendations on flight in cold conditions before winter.
Back under my stone.
TWA800 did not take 10 years. There was a Public Hearing after 17 months where all the main evidence was set out. Judge for yourself whether it was a useful exercise (NTSB Chairman's statement NTSB - Statement by Jim hall 12/12/97 and contents list NTSB - TWA 800 Public Hearing).
I am sure that the work to model the 777 fuel system and examine flight data is taking time for scientific reasons, not because industrial or political pressure is being brought to bear. It is quite possible there will be a big wrangle about liability etc later on, but I have confidence that as soon as the AAIB have narrowed the probable cause of BA38 down enough to be able to issue safety recommendations they will do so - they don't need to wait til the Final Report, and they would be judged harshly if they 'sat on' something important - I am sure they would not do that. As Precept said at the start of today's discussion, if it is looking likely to be cold-related and if BA38's exposure was unusual (I don't see why it has to be unique - other factors could have been involved which could recur) then it would be reasonable for AAIB to issue to recommendations on flight in cold conditions before winter.
Back under my stone.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree the AAIB will be acting under the very best intentions. After all, some of them, and their families may well be on RR equipped 777s on their holidays this summer too.
Where an obvious, or perhaps obvious after you look hard enough factor somes into play, they will put that new information to best use as soon as possible, without question.
The causes here are not like that, and they are working methodically as fast as possible and the end result will vindicate this. I've had first hand experience of the AAIB and their methods and have nothing but respect and faith in their investigators and techniques.
Where an obvious, or perhaps obvious after you look hard enough factor somes into play, they will put that new information to best use as soon as possible, without question.
The causes here are not like that, and they are working methodically as fast as possible and the end result will vindicate this. I've had first hand experience of the AAIB and their methods and have nothing but respect and faith in their investigators and techniques.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you get an unexplained but similar and almost simultaneous problem to two machines (in this case two perfectly functioning RR engines) logic tells me one has to focus on points in common. Obviously the flt routing but principaly the fuel. I know the AAIB have said the fuel was OK, but was it? I just feel they cleared its suitability rather two quickly. This flt came out of China, where a very important matter is currently taking place. China would not be very happy if the real cause was put down to them. One thing is for sure, if a further incident takes place soon, then it will be a field day for the New York aviation lawyers.