Old 01-28-2008, 12:46 PM
  #16  
KoruPilot
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Contract purgatory
Posts: 701
Default

You can se the RAT on the right side of the wreckage; the turbine looks intact but. . . (I didn't notice it in the video either, but it wasn't great video)

At any rate, the engines didn't quit, so the transfer buses would not have fired up, so the RAT would not have deployed.

Boeing changed the fuel tanks on the B777 so the aircraft would not have the same problem that the 747 had regarding freezing fuel, so that's really kind of unlikely. Some sort of contamination, other that water, could have done the trick however. But then all the samples they are taking from fuel uploads in Beijing should show the same contaminant. Even then, why just the one airplane, and for both tanks to experience the same problem at about the same time. Remember as well that the center tank would have run dry about five hours prior, and there would have been just about a ton left when it did, so if there was a contaminant problem it should have shown up there.

Of course the AIB would have thought of this, so like every one else they are grasping at straws a bit.

None the less, it really appears to be the only 'logical' technical explanation. I just don't see two staggered EEC problems, but perhaps a smart design engineer will help out and come up with an explanation.
KoruPilot is offline