|
Airworthiness Directive
I'd have thought a better approach would have been an "FD". Fuelworthiness Directive, and aimed at the fuel producers, not the a/c and operators. "Ice can form and block passageways, preventing increased flow....etc." Curiouser and curiouser. L. Carroll would have smiled.
AF |
wake up
hello people!!!!!!!!!one year .....airline /engine/location of crash /investigating authority all from the same country !no result when ALL the data is available. ??? sorry but wheras i have the greatest of respect for british proffessionalism this is a cover up and i am surrprised that more people dont care :ugh:
|
Certainly a cover up in my view. Convienient that any of the alledged ice would have melted pretty quickly. There is no other explanation.
|
Utter rubbish.
It can take a good deal longer than a year to publish the final report. Why does everybody see a conspiracy in everything these days? Personally, I trust the AAIB. |
Not a cover up
Missing the point maybe? Accomodating ice in fuel is irresponsible and negligent. The FAA has blundered utterly. "Ice in your fuel? Here's how, mate".
|
In this era of 24 hour rolling news and instant messaging it seems everytime a professional agency carries out an investigation in a careful controlled and considered manner there are screams of "cover up" or "conspiracy". Just to be clear The AAIB have a very good idea what happened but are not yet ready for it's findings to be published in "The Sun" or "Daily Mail".
In the meantime many those who really need to know have been briefed as to the ongoing state of the investigation and more importantly all of those who really need to know have been briefed on the preventative procedures that need to be followed to prevent a repeat of the 38. Those of you who don't need to know are going to have to put up with "Dancing on Ice" or "I'm a Celebrity, Get me out of here" if you want instant gratification. |
all of those who really need to know have been briefed on the preventative procedures that need to be followed to prevent a repeat of the 38. Those of you who don't need to know are going to have to put up with "Dancing on Ice" or "I'm a Celebrity, Get me out of here" if you want instant gratification. |
Quote :
"..... In the meantime many those who really need to know have been briefed as to the ongoing state of the investigation and more importantly all of those who really need to know have been briefed on the preventative procedures that need to be followed to prevent a repeat of the 38. ......" unquote Really, how fascinating - I'm sure you don't mean the FAA Airworthiness Directive which is nothing more than a bit of common sense on top of guesswork - which has no basis on known facts. It goes along with the hypothesis that IF there were more ice than thought possible AND there was an unexplained amazing set of circumstances that meant both sides fuel systems acted separately, yet almost simultaneously and to the same extent - then the AD makes perfect sense. As a piece of common sense the AD is good, but no one can be sure it is a proper preventative. . |
Convienient that any of the alledged ice would have melted pretty quickly. There is no other explanation. If so, evidence of this would have been found somewhere in the engine feed lines, FOHEs or fuel filters in the fuel delivery system, which according to the AAIB reports released sofar, is not the case. To quote the September 2008 report: The samples from engine fuel filters and housings contained a small number of very small droplets of water. These droplets could have resulted from the ingress of fire fighting media through damaged engine components, or might have been free water, which naturally settles in this area. No cover up, just lack of evidence to prove one (ice) of perhaps several possible hypotheses. It takes what it takes to come to the right conclusion. The final report will most likely not be released some time soon. |
phil g.
You are absolutely right, I don't mean the FAA Airworthiness Directive.
|
Originally Posted by precept
Ba 038
This is a pro-forma entry. Given no futher input from AAIB, NTSB, FAA or other authorities from 14 January 2009 regarding this thread, the members continue to await further science and knowledge. The BA038 accident remains a serious and unacceptable situation. It is hoped the interim action required by the AD note eliminates the possibility for further issues. Nevertheless, unresolved causes for accidents and appropriate final correcctive action must be the primary focus of this thread.
Originally Posted by RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike
Originally Posted by Viking101
So when is the official report of the accident coming out? Lets have some experts from the NTSB (or eq in UK) stating the problem, although I am bearing in mind all your tech knowledge and interesting speculations and rumours Feels it has been too long now... Someone trying to hide anything maybe? Or just hoping that people "forget" about the whole thing? Yay- more speculations If you had been paying attention, you would have seen posts 852 and 1006, where I note:- "I've just crunched the data on published formal reports by the AAIB back to 2006... The average length of time from incident to final report publication is 25.6 months, i.e. a little over two years. This does not and has not stopped them issuing recommendations, where appropriate, before the final report." |
Well ....... I suppose an "happy" anniversary is in order (?)
Quite a coincidence another no power landing in a city - but at least those circumstances seem to be known. . |
Question :
Is there anything written in the BA collective agreement for the concerned pilots to get a copy of the data not ASAP but as soon as Available, in other words not later than the AAIB ? |
Thats an easy one to answer. No.
|
I agree with previous post that fuel suppliers/producers should be a point of focus. This flight was from Bejing, very light passenger load, and obviously parked at high altitude for a considerable time. I remember a bulletin issued to pilots and dispatchers at my old airline that forbade the use of polar routes to North America, due to the lower quality fuel available in China, Bejing in particular. We routed over central Siberia and Alaska without incident (B-777's) but no further north. Evidently lab tests conducted on some fuel samples from China revealed a variation in fuel freeze points that was disturbing (at the time).
|
AD
The AD (per se) is a step not taken lightly by the FAA and its supplicants. Where is the usual grumbling? Fuel Burn, grumble grumble. Workload issues, grumble grumble, Training costs, grumble grumble. I think crews were (have been all along) cognizant of the hazards. This smells of dancing around the issue, political correctness, what have you. The Trent may have "weak links" that only show when water is in fuel. Is this on the Trent? NO, on the fuel side, in my opinion. I guess the FAA stopped short of demanding a different F/O heat exchanger (for example), but what remains is a tacit forbearance of ignorance of what has up to now been strict guidelines surrounding fuel composition, transport, storage and oversight.
AF |
The investigation has already shown the Chinese fuel was well above specification. What the investigation is currently showing is that a lot of what we think we know about the behaviour of water in fuel is wrong.
|
Carnage
Point taken. However keep in mind "above" spec. is not necessarily "on spec." There is no "better than spec." There is spec. "met" or not. What you suggest may be unknown water behavior in fuel may be a result of not in spite of "above spec."
AF |
Well in the case of the Chinese fuel the spec was met and exceeded by a considerable margin. The current testing is being conducted on fuels fro a variety of sources and it's all showing the interesting behaviour regarding water content.
|
Carnage Matey, will you stop introducing facts into this thread, it upsets the armchair experts.
Thank you. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.