NoharnessMar 10th, 2008 - 22:15:07

Yes, yes, I'm sure this fine distinction you are wont to draw would be of paramount importance to the crew and passengers of BA038. The bloody thing ran out of fuel. It's that simple. I'll keep watching the AAIB site and I'll keep reading the reports, but right now, I have no reason to apologize because ALL of the evidence presented so far says I'm right.

Report this comment

Look, f--kbrain...Mar 10th, 2008 - 22:15:29

from what Noharr posted, it looks pretty damaging, and let me tell you something: I happen to work in a place that provides....MRO services to a...large plane manufacturer...made in Washington state...

Get it????

I also service pumps, so what he is showing is pretty goddamn damaging.

That recorder has info that will tell us, to a gnats ass, if they were bingo on fuel.

That's why you wait for the report, dickhead!

One other thing: go study dual simultaneous engine failures on multi-engine aircraft and see what the number one cause is, then be sure to get back to us with the answer.

Report this comment

NoharnessMar 10th, 2008 - 22:35:10

Here is the ONLY mention of fuel quantities in the report, here quoted verbatim:

The aircraft was serviceable on departure from Beijing
and there were no relevant reported defects. It departed
with 79,000 kg of Jet A-1 fuel on board, and the planned
arrival fuel at London (Heathrow) was 6,900 kg.

The PLANNED quantity on arrival SHOULD have been 6,900 kg, or 15,180 lbs of fuel. That translates into something close to 2,000 gal (US). Given that the starboard landing gear bashed a great gaping hole in the center fuel tank, the only tank that should have had any fuel in it at this point of the flight, there should have been a long streak of fuel on the ground following the landing path of the airframe. There is no evidence of such a trail.

Not only did this airplane run out of fuel during this particular landing, the condition of the pumps indicates that it had been landed repeatedly under very low-fuel conditions on numerous occasions.

Notice that I do NOT blame the flight crew for this. They did their work based on the assumption that they did indeed have 79,000 kg or 173,800 lbs or some 21,725 gallons (US) of fuel on board prior to leaving Beijing. Clearly they did NOT leave Beijing with that much fuel and this is not the first time they left Beijing short of fuel. They probably never realized how many times this had happened. This is almost certainly the first time this problem has been caught.

Report this comment

At no hairnessMar 10th, 2008 - 22:44:02

More lies and obfuscation fron no-brain. This is from the report. Keep reading the thing pusface and apologise.
'The total fuel on board was indicating 10,500 kg, which was distributed
almost equally between the left and right main fuel tanks,
with a minor imbalance of about 300 kg.'

Report this comment

At this dickweed: look, f--kbrain...Mar 10th, 2008 - 22:46:39

If you are working at an aircraft plant it isn't as anything more important that janitor. You obviously don't have the mental capacity to do anything worthwhile. Go and lick nohatness's scrotal sack.

Report this comment

@ the no-manMar 10th, 2008 - 23:12:24

You're stuck, baby. The evidence is there that there was fuel on board. Ergo it did not run out of fuel. You stated it did. That is the long and the short of it. You are wrong and won't admit it. Be delaying the required apology, all you are doing is continuing to show the world what an irrelevant arse you really are. You've painted yourself into a corner. The only way out is to do the manly thing and apologise. Are you a man? Or are you an unemployed Texan? I have to assume the latter from the amount of time you spend squatting on this site. If you have to squat, do it in your bathroom. That is the proper place to defecate, not out here in public.

Report this comment

Get a life...Mar 10th, 2008 - 23:25:55

You are an obnoxious child having a tantrum. No one is impressed.

Report this comment

@ get a lifeMar 10th, 2008 - 23:28:02

I got one. As for the tantrum, how are you doing, getting over your inadequacies, yet?

Report this comment

As spfool would say...Mar 10th, 2008 - 23:32:39

noharness may be wrong, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Report this comment

NoharnessMar 11th, 2008 - 00:39:26

RE:'The total fuel on board was indicating 10,500 kg, which was distributed
almost equally between the left and right main fuel tanks,
with a minor imbalance of about 300 kg.''

Indicating does NOT mean that the fuel was there. A lot of this is done by calculation based on initial fuel load versus consumption during flight. 10,500kg of fuel divided between the two wing tanks with a 300kg imbalance would mean that one tank had 5,220 kg and the other with 5,550 kg. Assuming it was the port wing, the wing that was COMPLETELY disrupted that was light, would mean that there was a spill of some 1,435 gallons (US) from that tank alone. It is hard to imagine that that the starboard tank was not damaged badly enough for it to lose fuel and that would have meant a spill on the starboard side of some 1,526 gallons (US) of fuel. That is about 2,961 gallons total. Again, there is no sign of that much fuel on the ground.

No sign of a flaw in the fuel distribution piping was found. No significant blockages were found at any point in the fuel distribution system. No flaws have been found in the throttling system, neither in the software nor in the hardware. I can find no sign of a near 3,000 gallon spill in the photographs and there is no sign that the emergency response teams found any such quantity of fuel in the photographs. There are, however, signs of cavitation in both high pressure fuel pumps and the main fuel feed valves were found to be WIDE open.

No other Boeing 777 airframe with ANY brand of engines has had this kind of problem. It has been the safest airframe ever flown to date.

The only logical conclusion available from the data at hand is that the airplane ran out of fuel or was so low on fuel that the engines were unable to throttle up on demand. Cavitation damage to both pumps suggest that the airplane has neared this kind of disaster on a REGULAR BASIS. One episode of breaking NPSH will not cause that kind of damage to the pumps.

AAIB is still investigating this accident, but what they have found so far is evidence of there being no fuel or too little fuel aboard that airplane by the time it started its landing approach. In other words, It ran out of gas.

Report this comment

Noheadness, you idiot.Mar 11th, 2008 - 01:34:38

There was also the fuel that was spilled on the ground. 'A significant amount.' Cut the B.S. Cut the shuck and jive. Go to the bathroom, have a dump and clear your brain. Which part ot 'there was fuel on board' don't you understand? Which part, or all of it? Cut the crap and come forth with your promised apology. The aircraft did not run out of fuel.

Report this comment

awww, leave nomindedness aloneMar 11th, 2008 - 01:36:54

he's just another lying sack of feces, just like his hero, the Presidunce. What can be said about Texans? Nothing good. They are not men of their word.

Report this comment

Noharness wins!!!!!!!!!!Mar 11th, 2008 - 02:08:03

I cracked a few firewalls and just got this from some secret archives in the CIA. The aircraft BA 038)did run out of fuel. Not only that, but the Chinese put on only enough contaminated fuel for the aircraft to get to the North Pole. It crashed and killed all 500 on board. No wreckage has been recovered, because nobody wants the truth to get out. The rest of it is a coverup be the Chinese, British, The AAIB, FAA, NORAD, NTSB, Boeing and Mother Goose. The aircraft that went splat at Heathrow was a hastilly painted RAF Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft. All the people on board were members of the SAS and sworn to secrecy. There you go, noharness wins.

Report this comment