US News
BACKGROUND: US presidential election calendar
Mar 9, 2008, 1:28 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- Romney tallies narrow victory in Maine
- Romney wins Maine caucus
- Romney clinches support from die-hard conservatives in US confab
- Romney: Future US president or wolf in sheep's clothing?
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Actress Susan Sarandon funds table tennis for New York schools
- 2. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 3. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 4. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 5. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
Older Talkback
page: 1
My detractors have been eagerly awaiting an apology from me concerning my assertions about British Airways Flight 038 which made a very hard landing at Heathrow Airport Runway 27L on 17 Jan 08.
I downloaded and read the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. To my surprise, the AAIB has yet to reach a conclusion on what might have caused this remarkable accident. There can be very little question that something odd did happen to this particular airplane and as yet, a lack of fuel has not been ruled out as the primary cause. In the report, however, this is an interesting comment on the status of the high pressure fuel pumps, here quoted:
'Detailed examination of both the left and right engine high
pressure fuel pumps revealed signs of abnormal cavitation
on the pressure-side bearings and the outlet ports. This
could be indicative of either a restriction in the fuel
supply to the pumps or excessive aeration of the fuel. The
manufacturer assessed both pumps as still being capable
of delivering full fuel flow.'
This usually only happens to a pump when something either constrains flow of fluid into the pump, or there was insufficient fluid for the pump to pick up in the first place. How one might 'excessively' aeration of the fuel can be done on purpose, but it is hard to imagine a scenario in which it occurred by accident. Etching and pitting caused by excessive cavitation on both pumps suggest that constricted flow of fuel to the pump inlets has been occurring on a regular basis on this particular airplane. Such damage does not occur quickly.
According to recorded data, there should have been some 15,188 lbs or 6,6900 kilgrams of fuel left on this airplane at the time of its accident. I have been unable to find any sign that this much fuel was lost during the landing and all of it certainly should have spilled out on the ground judging from photographs and from the official report's statement that the center tank in the wing root box was ruptured by the starboard landing gear.
This does not mean that I am free of my obligation to apologize for my statements. However, the repost fails to show my statements to be wrong. AAIB has promised more data as their investigation progresses and as soon as thy provide proof positive of the cause of this accident that shoes my assessment to be in error, I WILL make such an apology. So far, however, AAIB has provided no such proof.
For those interested, the latest official update is available here in PDF:
www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/S1-2008%20G-YMMM.pdf
Groups make plans to protest at Republican & Democratic conventions
Published Feb 23, 2008 10:03 AM
By Workers World correspondents
Minneapolis, Minn., and Olympia, Wash.
Plans are already underway for protest demonstrations this summer when the two major capitalist parties have their nominating conventions. Two recent conferences in different cities showed the broad range of issues various groups intend to raise when both the Republicans and Democrats meet.
Notable is the fact that unions and organizations of the poor met together with anti-war and anti-imperialist groups, indicating the connections being drawn between the growing economic woes of the working class and the immense outlay of funds by the capitalist government for imperialist aggression abroad.
For the DNC, two activists who are part of the Recreate 68 Alliance spoke. Glenn Spagnuolo of the All Nations Alliance and Larry Hales of the youth group Fight Imperialism-Stand Together (FIST) presented to the audience in the late evening for an hour and a half. Spagnuolo explained that R68 was formed in January last year by local Denver activists from the Latin@, African-American, Native and white communities, representing such different issues as racism, imperialism, anti-war, anti-globalization, for immigrant rights and Indigenous rights. They agreed to work together to create a week of political solidarity in resistance and protest.
The idea of Recreate 68 is being used to move communities forward by looking back at a time of great resistance to war and racism.
Spagnuolo made reference to the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and its Ten-Point Program, where the party provided security, free breakfasts for children programs and education in many communities.
He also spoke of the government’s brutal attacks in response to the party’s activism, the anti-war positions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, the mass movements against oppression headed by organizations such as the American Indian Movement, the Young Lords, the Gay Liberation Front and many other groups.
Racism, imperialist war, poverty—all the things that come with capitalism—are still with us, Spagnuolo explained, and though Cointelpro is not around in name, the government has other forms of surveillance and of targeting activists, such as the massive Homeland Security apparatus.
Larry Hales of FIST spoke about the numerous cases of police brutality in the Denver area, such as the case of Loree McCormick-Rice and her then-12-year-old daughter Cassidy McCormick, who were both beaten by an Aurora, Colo., cop. He spoke of the occupation of the oppressed communities by police and the role of police in capitalist society.
Hales asked the students to be mindful of the communities and the people whom they are claiming to represent. The residents of communities of color are faced with police terror all the time, not just during marches and rallies. Police brutality is a daily reality for many working and oppressed people.
He told them that they must be sensitive to the needs of the people and be aware of history that is being made today. For instance, Hales said, a white woman and a Black man are running for president. Though they both represent the interests of the imperialist U.S. ruling class and their agenda would be to appease the ruling elite, there are many oppressed people who see the fact that they are running and that one or the other may likely win the general election as a milestone.
People will be out in the streets for many reasons, and activists have to keep focused on the issues while at the same time being aware that some people are looking at these candidates as a victory for women and Black people. It will take time for them to see what the development really means, as the next president goes about her or his business running the U.S. imperialist colossus.
A whole week of activities, rallies and marches is planned for the DNC by Recreate 68. To find out about them, visit recreate68.org.
www.workers.org/2008/us/conventions_0228
Che X
Your 60's dildos are the one's that passed the trade legislation of the 1990s. The Clintons sold influence to China and in return, got them MFN status. The unions you speak of were silent through the whole process.
I know: I worked on the Perot campaign and we were the ONLY people opposing this mess.
You know what: It WAS benefical! The republicans, totally honest about their stance, were right.
By the way, we have a saying in the republican party:
Nixon was elected in 1968.
You are guilty of mindcrimes and you are not educated like me.
Che X
..I'm not educated anything like you! Unplug yourself from the 60's and come up to the present.
always for Bill Clinton. One of the best things to happen to the USA and could kick Bush's sorry hind-end in a debate or in the ring any day of the week. Bush is the biggest liar/coward to ever come down the pike. He has abandoned the USA and her people.
Bush is a thief too. Anybody who supports Bush is insane or an idiot.
more thing; I'd like to see Hillary elected.
Your apology IS demanded. YOU asserted that the aircraft ran out of fuel. The report shows that the aircraft did not run out of fuel. Ergo, an apology from you is in order. At the time of the incident posters said that you would try to weasel your way out. That is exactly what you are trying to do. Grow up. Be a man. Sincerely apologise. Pumps may or not have failed. That is a non sequitur. The aircraft had tons of fuel on board. whether it leaked at the crash site or not is a red herring. Stop being a bloody boil on the arse of the world. Be a man and apologise.
of his exact words, here is his post. The aircraft did not run out of fuel. The omly thing here that is out of gas is noharness. Your apology is due.
NoharnessJan 18th, 2008 - 20:27:00
RE:'The British Airways Boeing which crash-landed at London's Heathrow airport suffered double-engine failure during the approach, an initial report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said Friday.'
Guys, when the engines don't have fuel to burn, guess what they do. They stop running.
Sound crazy? I know of at least two large aircraft that have crashed for this very reason. One was from Venezuela and crash landed outside New York City. Another, a 747, managed to glide to a landing on Tenerife when it ran out of fuel over the Atlantic. It happens. I really does happen.
Look at the pictures. Do see any signs of any kind of fire? No. Do you see a big blanket of foam around the airplane? No.
The gorramned thing ran out of fuel. So why did it run out of fuel? The most likely answer is that it left Beijing without enough fuel. It should have had at least a fifteen minute flight margin. Barring a small, unnoticeable leak and a really strong headwind, they left Beijing with insufficient fuel.
Show me where that 2000 gallons of fuel went and I will apologize at once. There was no sign of such a massive spill in the photographs. If you can show me a photograph of dead grass where that airplane struck the ground, I might apologize anyway. So far, though I have yet to see an accounting for that 2,000 gallons of fuel. Further, the condition of the fuel pumps suggests that this particular airframe was coming in low on fuel on a regular basis.
RE:'Stop being a bloody boil on the arse of the world.'
Sorry, can't do that, old bean. It's my job, you see.
...you wait for the report.
Where did the fuel go? I don't have to say, that wasn't part of the deal. The report says there was someting like 15000 lbs. of fuel ON BOARD. YOU said it ran out of fuel. It didn't. Apologise. Be a man, not a mensch. As for being a boil on the arse of the world and being proud of it, remember what happens to boils. They get lanced, Mr. Granberry.
noharness is proud of being a bag of pus.
Just so noharness doesn't get it wrong, over here 'mensch' does not mean 'a stand-up guy.' It has a far, far different meaning. I suppose even when confronted with the facts the weasel will still try to get out of his duty. But what else could be expected from a colonial?
Quoting the report:
========================================
The recorded data indicates that there were no anomalies
in the major aircraft systems. The autopilot and the
autothrottle systems behaved correctly and the engine
control systems were providing the correct commands
prior to, during, and after, the reduction in thrust.
========================================
We have no indication of either a software or mechanical linkage failure between the cockpit and the engines. No sign of failure in the linkages between the computer and the engines and no sign of failure in the lkinkages between the pilots and the engines.
Again quoting the report:
========================================
Data, downloaded from the Electronic Engine Controllers
(EECs) and the QAR, revealed no anomalies with the
control system operation. At the point when the right
engine began to lose thrust the data indicated that the
right engine EEC responded correctly to a reduction
in fuel flow to the right engine, followed by a similar
response from the left EEC when fuel flow to the left
engine diminished. Data also revealed that the fuel
metering valves on both engines correctly moved to the
fully open position to schedule an increase in fuel flow.
Both fuel metering units were tested and examined, and
revealed no pre-existing defects.
=========================================
This is consistent with the pumps breaking NPSH while scavenging for fuel that isn't there.
Quoting the report:
=========================================
The fuel boost pumps, and their associated low pressure
switches, were tested and examined and found to be
satisfactory. A pressure and suction test of the engine fuel
feed manifold, from the fuel boost pumps to the engine,
did not reveal any significant defects.
==========================================
No leaks or obstructions in the fuel delivery piping found, even after a very hard landing.
Quoting the report:
==========================================
Several fuel samples were taken from the fuel tanks,
pipe lines and filter housings prior to the examination of
the fuel system and these are currently being examined
at specialist laboratories. Initial results confirm that the
fuel conforms to Jet A-1 specifications and that there
were no signs of contamination or unusual levels of
water content.
=========================================
And therefore no reason to believe that there was any significant frothing to cause the pumps to break NPSH.
========================================
Guys, this bird ran out of fuel. More importantly, it has been landing with too little fuel on a regular basis.
The report says that there was a PLANNED 6,900 kg of fuel on board. That works out to something around 2,000 US gallons. The initial report says that recorded data INDICATED there was sufficient fuel on board. If you know anything about large pieces of equipment you know that there is always room for doubt in these figures. There was no fire. There was no sign of the grass around the airframe wilting from being saturated with fuel. Again, can you show me dead grass where that airplane landed? Right now I have no reason to believe that there was 2,000 gallons (US) of fuel left on that airplane when it attempted to land. There is NOTHING in the report that verifies the amount of fuel left on board. To the contrary, every indication we have from the report says that this airplane was dangerously short on fuel.
I have worked with the Chinese. I know how they operate. I know how little regard they have for the safety of anyone. I know how willing they are to say one thing and do another. Right now, with the evidence I have in front of me, British Airways should be worried about and should be checking on how their aircraft are being fueled in Beijing.
Shuck and jive, baby. More obfuscation from a pus-bag. You did not include the part where it says that there was over 15000 pounds of fuel ONBOARD, after the accident. The apology to all, from you, is still in order.
the report indicates 10,500 lbs of fuel on board. A significant amount leaked upon the crash. That does not indicate all of it spilled on the ground, nohatness. But it still stands, there was fuel on board. You claim it ran out. That is the situation, plain and simple. So simple that even a pustule like yourself can understand it. Be a man and apologise. You were wrong. You shot your mouth off. You are just making yourself look like a complete arse with your intransigence. You might gaine a modicum of credibility if you act like a man and apologise, like you said you would. If not, then all you are is just another scumsucking yankee.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
You are an obnoxious child having a tantrum. No one is impressed.
I got one. As for the tantrum, how are you doing, getting over your inadequacies, yet?
noharness may be wrong, but that doesn't make him wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story