It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by solidshot
but what would explain both the loss of power and the electronics failure both at the same time?
Originally posted by Rotoplooker
There was a crash of an Airbus 320 that was doing a low pass during a demonstration. When the pilot applied power for the climb-out, the engines did not respond and remained idle. Some think this was caused by a programming error in the fly by wire software.
Originally posted by FredT
Just comming on and have not read the entire thread.,
Was this an ETOPS a/c?
Twin engine failures IMHO points to either a fuel issue or some kind of software code error. A dual birdstrike is highly unlikely as is an EMP type device.
Originally posted by solidshot
An emp would surely have knocked out the electronics around the airport? also don't aircraft have their electronics encased within some kind of faraday cage to protect them from lightening strikes ect? and wouldnt this have rendered an emp useless?
[edit on 18-1-2008 by solidshot]
Another method of protection is to keep all essential electronics within an electrically conductive enclosure, called a Faraday cage. This prevents the damaging electromagentic field from interacting with vital equipment. The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagentic field to enter the cage, which ultimately renders the enclosure useless.
The aircraft came to rest at the edge of the pre-threshold tarmac of runway 27L having made a very short ground run of about 350m. Witness reports of the aircraft attitude as it crossed the boundary fence suggest the aircraft was at or close to its stalling speed.
Sources at Heathrow say the crew had declared an emergency early on final approach but did not have time to be specific about the problem.
Almost all the passengers who have commented since the accident say the approach felt normal and the crew did not provide any warnings, but many did not realise they had "crashed" until the cabin crew ordered the evacuation. There was no fire
The theory pilots propose is that although fuel was plentiful, a heavier-than-fuel contaminant, such as water, represented a minute proportion of the fuel in the tanks on the approach, so problems did not arise.During the flight, the fuel was cold-soaked and any contaminant could have frozen to crystalline or solid form. Then, in the bumpy approach at lower levels, as the fuel warmed, the melting contaminant began to circulate in the relatively small amount of fuel remaining, forming a slush that could impede the fuel flow to the engines
Originally posted by juggle
Seems like a very plausible reason seeing as a birdstrike has all but been ruled out. I wonder if any checks are being performed at the Airport in China to ascertain any issues with the quality of fuel used ?
Hey John Lear, what are your thoughts on the fly by wire systems?