Sid Boyce wrote: > Jon Stockill wrote: > >>It seems BA had a little bit of an accident at EGLL. >> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm >> >>Jon >> > > > Lucky indeed, but they did admirably. Waiting to hear exactly what the > problem was. Very disturbing if all power plants suddenly quit. > Regards > Sid. This one is quite confusing. I thought they had some kind of battery backup on the critical flight instruments that would give them at least a minute or so to get the ram air turbine deployed. I guess the flight controls did have backup, I can't imagine he was flying by direct mechanical linkage from the yoke to the control surfaces. Providing all the power to support the hydraulic flight controls while leaving the pilot blind and flying mostly by the seat of his pants just seems ludicrous. How big a battery does it take to power one DADC, flight computer and one primary flight display? I guess you need a gyro in there, too.
I suppose a first thing to look at is if the fuel tanks and lines were empty. Some reports are talking about bird strikes. Well, it could be, but seems pretty far fetched. Also, one pilot/witness said he heard louder than normal engine noise just before impact. I can imagine a scenario where multiple large bird strikes could damage an engine such that it produced no thrust, yet the core continued to run. But, the loss of the instruments would indicate the engines had stopped. Maybe the smashed fans were windmilling and making a huge racket. Seems the first indications of massive, multiple bird strikes would leave plenty of easily visible evidence. Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
