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.
Initial reports from the UK Air Accidents Investigations Branch, which is investigating the crash, have confirmed that the auto-throttles did not respond as the aircraft approached landing.
Since the auto-throttle is controlled via the aircarft's electronic systems, wireless interference is one possible explanation, according to Paul Cousins, federal president of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA). However, he said there are several other possibilities.
"As to why this occurred there are numerous possible reasons, ranging from electronics, or dirty fuel, to the engines themselves. At this time, obviously, I wouldn't like to speculate because the information is not at hand," Cousins told ZDNet.com.au.
Although Anderson's theory cannot be substantiated until investigations have concluded, Cousins -- who has worked on Boeing's 737-800, all the 737-series and the 767 -- said that besides the soon-to-be-launched Boeing 787, the 777 has the most electronically-controlled components of all commercial aircraft.
"On [the 777] there are a vast number of systems that are controlled electronically. When it was created that was the beginning of the electronics-age for that aircraft, so almost every system -- auto-pilot, auto-throttle, power management, and so on -- on that aircraft would have some electronics input," he said.
One system he believes would not be at fault in this instance -- despite recent concerns the Boeing 787's electronic-systems could be hacked through its passenger entertainment systems -- is the passenger entertainment system.
"This particular aircraft has been around for a number of years. If there were any hiccups in the passenger entertainment system such as Wi-Fi access or telephone-use onboard it would have been picked up by now," he said.
However ALAEA's federal secretary, Steven Purvinas, an avionics engineer with 20 years experience, contacted members of the organisation who had worked on the Boeing 777. He told ZDNet.com.au that of all Boeing's aircraft, the 777 is most likely to be affected by wireless or radio frequency interference.
"The 777 is far more electronically capable and reliant on it than its predecessors such as the Boeing 747. If wireless interference hasn't been ruled out as a possible cause, this aircraft would be a prime candidate for it," said Purvinas.
According to the members of the ALAEA who have worked on Boeing 777 aircraft, but declined to be interviewed, Boeing has taken extra measures to secure the systems and wiring that connect those systems.
The engineers claimed that although the 777 relies more on its electronic components, its wiring bundles are heavily shielded against radiation and stray currents that might affect the integrity of the system.
A more likely cause of the aircraft's throttle systems to fail at that stage of descent, according to Purvinas, is dirty fuel from Beijing, where it had refuelled before heading to London's Heathrow Airport.
"In this case, we're talking both engines carking it at same time. At that stage the aircraft is tilted at a certain altitude so when the fuel moves back into the tanks, it may expose the fuel pumps to water which is contained in the tanks," he said.
A small amount of water is not uncommon in fuel, Purvinas said.
"When you're putting in a hundred thousand kilos of fuel, there is a small component of water but if that all rises to the top of the fuel tank and is exposed to the fuel-pump intakes at same time, that is when you may have a problem at the same time on both engines," he said.
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
Kull
23/01/2008 09:29 AM
In a word: No.
Report offensive content
jcuniverse
23/01/2008 10:14 AM
Water in the fuelm tanks sounds more than possible
Report offensive content
Avionics Design Engineer
23/01/2008 12:16 PM
Alarmist, uniformed rubbish. The A380, A330, A340, 737-700/800, 777, etc all have comparable number of electronically controlled components and all aircraft in the Airbus range introduced after the A300 are fly by wire. Obviously the author has little understanding of modern aircraft avionics (the use of the word 'brain' give a lot away). It is best that this sort of uninformed 'report' be ignored.
Report offensive content
aeronought
23/01/2008 02:14 PM
Fly by wire technology has been around for more than 20 yrs and questions about new technology and its effects on pilots and aircraft have been going on since the 1988 crash of an A320 at Habsheim. In 1998, arcing in the in-flight entertainment cables downed a Swissair MD-11. It's early days in the investigation so all potential causes should be considered.
Report offensive content
JoeJoe
23/01/2008 02:39 PM
She might as well said Saddam did it. Not to be mean or anything but this lady is a crack pot whith no basis, backgoung ar anything that could be implies as expertise. SHe has nothing more but drunken bar room drawl, that for some reason is being spread through the media as potential fact. As a life long aircraft mechanic, I know better than to even respond, the fact the media is even posting this dribble is pathetic.
Report offensive content
Zaphod Beeblebrox
23/01/2008 05:06 PM
Are you kidding me? This article is merely enterprising on the lack of information. Liam Tung is representing the sensational side of media that unfortunately says more about Liam and CNet than it does about the incident.
Report offensive content
Flight Control Engineer
23/01/2008 08:09 PM
Enough said. Couldn't agree more with the above comments.
Report offensive content
ergotron
23/01/2008 09:44 PM
What a crock. Sensationalist rubbish as stated in above comments. Do you think that boeing didn't think of this kind of interference when they designed thse things? C'mon CNET give this shite a miss and stick to the stuff you're good at. Next you'll be reporting that those airliners are leaving chemtrails in the sky.... Avionics Technician and EMI/EMC specialist 19 years.
Report offensive content
Flight Test Engineer
23/01/2008 09:48 PM
First, there's no way that "Wi-Fi Interference" knocked out the autothrottle. Second, even if it did, the pilots were unable to control the engines with the throttle levers either. Were they somehow disabled by a cell phone also? It's shocking how poor the reporting is in this article. The author came up with some strange idea and then proposed it to a professor in Arizone who has nothing to do with the investigation (and no knowledge of it). The professor says, "I don't know enough about the crash to be able to rule that out", so the author runs with the theory as if the professor completely endoresed it.
Report offensive content
yusuf
24/01/2008 06:08 AM
Personally, the culprit of this incident is due to a plane running out of fuel. Just US alone their have been 77 incidents were planes had to land to nearest airport because they were very low on fuel and 17 of those were critical. I am not a pilot, but fuel being so expensive and BA being in cash strap airline it seems to me that they are more likely to cut corners than let say Virgin Airline. For starters, just look BA record history if you don’t believe me read this article http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/13/news/fly.php secondly, they just being fined for price fixing scam that cost the company over 150 million dollars. Did you guys notice how they tried to spine the story, and started to focus how brave and professional the crew handled the situation (what load crap, this is what they have been trained to due, there is nothing neither professional nor brave about they just did. They did their job, period). Although, we may never know what really happen, I would like to see other countries get involve the investigation, especially those who are operating large fleet of B777. One more, I have nothing against pilots in general and I am sure the actions of those brave pilots save the lives of hundreds passengers on board and pedestrians on the ground. I just believe what they did; it is some what irrelevant at this point, at this moment we need to focus on what really went wrong.
Report offensive content
Boeing 777 IFE Engineer
24/01/2008 08:58 AM
As with the other comments, I agree that this article is based on some pretty stupid assumptions. There's no way that "Wi-Fi" or any other radio interference would disable a 777. In fact, many 777's have had wireless modems installed IN THEM for internet connectivity and they certainly didn't cause any problems with the plane's systems, much less interference from a weak signal OUTSIDE of the aircraft. Also, the notion that water would rise to the TOP of the tank is completely ridiculous. Kerosene (jet fuel) is much less dense than water, meaning the water would sit at the bottom of the tank. Reading this article was a waste of time...
Report offensive content
M_S_Eden
26/01/2008 07:42 AM
Double engine failures are remote. However, they do occur. A BAC 111 on take-off from Hasloh, Germany 9/06/1971 experienced a double engine failure from contaminated engine cooling liquids. There were no survivors.
Report offensive content
irishgrover
31/01/2008 03:48 AM
if this article was in a tabloid the response would be "low end, sensationalist rubbish, poor reporting at it's worst, showing a complete lack of understanding of avionics or technology", which is IMHO exactly what this drivel is............maybe the plane was brought down by a mystical cult who were seen chanting just outside the perimeter fence. The reporter should hand their head in shame, the editor should join him, for such a poor headline...
Report offensive content
RM
31/01/2008 07:38 AM
All Wi-fi and cell phones should be banned on commercial aircraft. Period.
Report offensive content
tmd_63
29/02/2008 10:20 PM
The author obviously has no understanding of even basic vehicle operations. Gravity holds water and fuel DOWN in a tank not up. The basic construction of a fuel tank is a simple box with a filler hole at the top (to let gravity hold the fuel in the tank) and outlets near the bottom of the tank. The outlets are never placed at the bottom to allow for water and sludge to collect there instead of being drawn into the fuel pump system. There would be an excessive amount of water in the fuel to overflow this simple safety measure (but it is not impossible with poor grade fuel). Most electronics systems have extensive shielding around the control circuits. The only route for interference is via the wiring, but that is negated by the use of differential signalling which ignores the interference. Reporting this type of incident without all the facts is just another form of sensationalising media to get sales (hits) instead of reporting the truth.
Report offensive content
sniche
11/03/2008 10:16 PM
KERNAL PANIC, must be running VISTA and it can't handle any WIFI signals when running anything less complicated
Report offensive content
Max
03/04/2008 09:53 PM
If Wi-Fi interferes with planes, the entire of the A340-500 fleet used by Emirates should have crashed by now. What a joke. You would have more of a chance of Wi-Fi interfering with your cordless home phone.
Report offensive content
vaujanolo
01/05/2008 12:31 AM
Before speculating, read the report: http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s1_2008___boeing_777_236_er__g_ymmm.cfm
Report offensive content