- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
Heard on the radio that the aircraft that crash landed at London airport crashed because of ice in the fuel (or that is the best guess) surly this is a cop out.
wolram said:Heard on the radio that the aircraft that crash landed at London airport crashed because of ice in the fuel (or that is the best guess) surly this is a cop out.
FredGarvin said:Are we talking about the large craft that had the dual engine flame out about a year ago or so? I find it hard to believe myself that ice was the culprit. With icing inhibitors and heated fuel system filters, and the fact that the shutdown happened on final, at low temperatures.I just have a tough time with that. I need to get my head back around the details of that incident.
I see a fight coming from Boeing...
Greg Bernhardt said:Why do you think it's a cop out?
FredGarvin said:Of course they are going to be part of the investigation. No one knows that aircraft better. Part of that investigation is to make sure the root cause is not put improperly on something they missed. They won't steer the investigation, but they'll make darned sure that they have their butts covered. A simple problem like water in the fuel and thus icing is a big screw up. There should have been preventive measures in the design to prevent a dual flame out. They are going to defend their design vigorously to say the least.
Yes. It is the responsibility for the engineers that maintain the pumping stations and pipe lines to ensure as little water as possible makes it through to the aircraft. In a small aircraft, it's easy to walk up to a wing port and pull a sample from the bottom of a tank. As a matter of fact, if you see water, you're supposed to keep pulling samples until you stop seeing water. That's fine when you have a couple hundred gallons. We did this every flight when I was in the Army too. However, I can't imagine the time or the hassle of getting up under the wing of a 747. The fuel farm system should have a large bank of coalescing filters that sole purpose is to remove the water from the fuel.wolram said:On small aircraft the pilot is responsible for checking for water in the fuel, i can only imagine that the people that re fuel a big aircraft check for water, is this so?
nucleus said:In my last post I provided a link to the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) interim report. It is about half way down the page.
In the report it tells you that the airplane already has oil/fuel heat exchangers, and they believe restriction happened upstream of it.
That the sumps were drained the day before, what tests they have already done and not done and a whole lot more.
In the NY Times this weekend they reported what they may use as an in-term measure
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/world/europe/05crash.html
The aircraft crash at London Airport was caused by a combination of factors, including ice in the fuel and a lack of de-icing procedures. However, it is important to note that the root cause of the crash is still under investigation.
While ice in fuel is not a common occurrence, it is a known issue that can potentially cause problems for aircraft. That is why strict de-icing procedures are typically in place to prevent this from happening.
It is difficult to say for certain whether or not the pilot could have prevented the crash. However, it is important for pilots to follow proper procedures and make informed decisions when faced with unexpected situations.
Following the aircraft crash at London Airport, there have been increased efforts to improve de-icing procedures and technology to prevent ice in fuel from causing future crashes. Additionally, pilots are also being trained on how to handle such situations effectively.
While ice in fuel is the most likely cause of the crash, there may have been other contributing factors such as human error or mechanical issues. The investigation is ongoing and all possible factors are being considered.