Did Wi-Fi interference cause Boeing 777 crash?

Builder.au:

Quote:

---

Did Wi-Fi interference cause Boeing 777 crash?

Liam Tung - 2008/01/22 17:42:01

The recent BA038 crash-landing at Heathrow airport may have been caused by interference from wireless networks, which affected the aircraft's electronically controlled power and automated flight systems.

Nina Anderson, author of 'Worse Than Global Warming -- Wave Technology' has speculated that interference from rogue radio frequencies could have influenced the aircraft's "brain", causing one or more of its electronically-controlled systems -- such as the auto-pilot, auto-throttle and power management -- to fail.

However avionics experts remain reserved about such claims, preferring to blame 'dirty fuel' from Beijing on both engines failing. Read more...

---

[Mod note: The original post included the entire article, which I shortened to an excerpt. We do encourage you to post outside news stories, but please remember to post only a couple of paragraphs of the story with a link to the original, as outlined in the Forum Rules. Thank you!]

So, the story talks about dirty fuel from Bejing. To the common man, that makes a lot of sense, but to a person that works in the industry I ask this...Why was this the only aircraft from Bejing affected? I'm sure they were not the only departure planned to arrive with minimum fuel. Many carriers do this as an every day practice, land with as little as LEGALLY possible (usually reserves + 10%) to avoid the penalty of flying with too much fuel.

So with that said, it's logical to think that at LEAST one or two others landed at their destinations with the same amount of fuel in the tanks...why then, did they not experience fuel contamination as well???

Just something to think about. :idea:

I don't know much about fuel or wireless, but I'm glad the article notes that it is SPECULATION.

Personally, I think Nina Anderson just needed to make a few books sales and this was her springboard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

Personally, I think Nina Anderson just needed to make a few books sales and this was her springboard.

---

That was my first reaction as well. It doesn't sound like there's much behind this other than guesswork. Yet.

The airticle incorrectly cites EMI as possible cause of the autothrottles failing . The AAIB's wording actually says the autothrottles commanded a throttle increase , and the engines failed to respond. So in reality , the autothrottles seem to work as they were intended. It was the engines or their FADEC software which did not follow throttle movements.

Quote:

---

the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond. Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond.

---

My question is this . at 600feet on an ILS approach you should already be stabilized.
http://www.flightsafety.org/alar/ala...blizedappr.pdf
Im interested to see what else the engines did or didnt do

AAIB Raport:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resource ... G-YMMM.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHG750R

My question is this . at 600feet on an ILS approach you should already be stabilized.

---

Prior to the engines failing to respond, what do you see that wasn't stabilized on this approach? Sounds like everything was normal until the engines failed to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose135

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHG750R

My question is this . at 600feet on an ILS approach you should already be stabilized.

---

Prior to the engines failing to respond, what do you see that wasn't stabilized on this approach? Sounds like everything was normal until the engines failed to respond.

---

My bad , Moose is right . I just re-read the report. :oops:
It clearly says the apprach was stabilized