From: News on
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:05:07 -0500, News <News(a)Groups.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:10:20 -0800, "theref" <theref(a)seanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:99adnZJAetdSdQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>> bjn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:38:19 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic
>>>>>>>>> throttle is a problem, and that brakes, transmissions and
>>>>>>>>> ignition kill switches can all simultaneously fail causing a
>>>>>>>>> driver to lose control, it might be worth auto manufacturers of
>>>>>>>>> all stripes to adopt a slightly different implementation of
>>>>>>>>> electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical reasons, but
>>>>>>>>> to shut the idiots up...
>>>>>>>> The lawyers, politicians, and news media can convince the public
>>>>>>>> of the impossible (failure even a totally fail safe system) any
>>>>>>>> time they decide to do it depending on political or monetary
>>>>>>>> motivation. IOW - the people and companies who do a good job of
>>>>>>>> designing are going to get punished anyway (unless they know how
>>>>>>>> to play the game in a corrupt system). There are people in our
>>>>>>>> society whose life goal is to make sure that that happens.
>>>>>>> The problem is that now lawyers, politicians and news media are
>>>>>>> driving (no
>>>>>>> pun intended) solution. The way I see them talking, cars will
>>>>>>> wind up with
>>>>>>> a fail-safe throttle that is more fail-safe than the controls of
>>>>>>> a jumbo
>>>>>>> passenger jet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure about this but for sure... The causes you cite
>>>>>> certainly contributed in getting to where we're at!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, don't forget that little incident when a B-777's engines went
>>>>>> to idle about a minute before touch down at Heathrow about a year
>>>>>> ago. Aircraft was totaled but there were no major injuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cause has been assessed to software/computer glitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JT
>>>>> I believe that was traced to icing in the fuel system. SOP now is
>>>>> to cycle fuel after prolonged low temp at altitude.
>>>> Icing on a JET?????????
>>>> Don't think so.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Determined to be cause of BA 777 landing short at Heathrow.
>>
>> OK - I looked it up. Technically this was fuel jelling - common with
>> diesel fuel in arctic conditions. In the case of the Rolls turbines,
>> it was a design fault in the fuel pre-heater unit which resulted in a
>> mandatory replacement with a redesigned heat exchanger.
>>
>> Different than the carb icing on a prop plane.
>
>
> Good point.
>
> I like to read the whole technical report as opposed to what was
> published in a paper.


Have at it:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/1_2010_g_ymmm.cfm

Advise when able.
From: Bill Putney on
David Skelton wrote:

> All three had the "air bypass" valve too.
>
> I do not know what you mean with "ISC system".
>
> BTW, I have known some discreet electronic components that have failed due
> to being used too near the maximun demand for too long, would you not
> consider that to be 'wearing out' ??

Hah! Yeah - like LED assembly replacements for incandescents that you
buy off of ebay that use LED's designed for maximum current of X, and in
the assembly they each dissipate 1.3X so they can advertise brightness
and compete on an even footing with their competition that is doing the
same thing. So what if the LED's fail in 6 months - they have your
money and you already gave them rave reviews.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
From: fred on
jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in
news:9qidnajX__kcAQnWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net:

> On 03/07/2010 02:33 PM, fred wrote:
>> jim beam<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in
>> news:fvudnV-hwr-Z6A_WnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d(a)speakeasy.net:
>>

>> Chevrolet's not unique in that regard. The persistant occurance of
>> cars with paddle shifters whose operation have no co-relation to the
>> actual shifting of gears is more of 6the same.
>
> but at least there's logic to that - no over-rev for example. no such
> logic on the p.o.s. chevy when you're trying to drive a mountain road.
>
I've seen test drives where it wasn't the problem. I can't recall exact
ones, but they weren't Ferrari's or Lambo's for example. Top Gear has
dealt with this at least once - and several times which points directly
to your idea. Always done by Clarkson it seems. There was one cheap car
I remember (perhaps a Tata) that he actually showed it happening
as he was driving with the cameraman in the front passenger seat.

>>
>> At a glance it sounds to me like we're not actually hearing from
>> people who *know* what the problem is yet.
>
> what "problem"??? other than a political one of course.
>
Yeah. Toyota wasn't founded in the US. End of story.

From: dizzy on
jim beam wrote:

>> My experiences were on things like an '86
>> Subaru Turbo wagon, an '88 Cadillac DeVille, '99 Buick Century, and 2
>> 2nd generation Chrysler Concordes - all in tip-top mechanical shape.
>
>ugh. can't you drive decent cars for pete's sake?

Hehe.

From: clare on
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:58:57 -0500, News <News(a)Groups.Name> wrote:

>clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:05:07 -0500, News <News(a)Groups.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:10:20 -0800, "theref" <theref(a)seanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:99adnZJAetdSdQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>> bjn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:38:19 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic throttle is a
>>>>>>>>> problem, and that brakes, transmissions and ignition kill switches can
>>>>>>>>> all simultaneously fail causing a driver to lose control, it might be
>>>>>>>>> worth auto manufacturers of all stripes to adopt a slightly different
>>>>>>>>> implementation of electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical
>>>>>>>>> reasons, but to shut the idiots up...
>>>>>>>> The lawyers, politicians, and news media can convince the public of the
>>>>>>>> impossible (failure even a totally fail safe system) any time they
>>>>>>>> decide to do it depending on political or monetary motivation. IOW -
>>>>>>>> the people and companies who do a good job of designing are going to get
>>>>>>>> punished anyway (unless they know how to play the game in a corrupt
>>>>>>>> system). There are people in our society whose life goal is to make
>>>>>>>> sure that that happens.
>>>>>>> The problem is that now lawyers, politicians and news media are driving
>>>>>>> (no
>>>>>>> pun intended) solution. The way I see them talking, cars will wind up
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> a fail-safe throttle that is more fail-safe than the controls of a jumbo
>>>>>>> passenger jet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure about this but for sure... The causes you cite certainly
>>>>>> contributed in getting to where we're at!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, don't forget that little incident when a B-777's engines went to idle
>>>>>> about a minute before touch down at Heathrow about a year ago. Aircraft
>>>>>> was totaled but there were no major injuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cause has been assessed to software/computer glitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JT
>>>>> I believe that was traced to icing in the fuel system. SOP now is to cycle
>>>>> fuel after prolonged low temp at altitude.
>>>> Icing on a JET?????????
>>>> Don't think so.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Determined to be cause of BA 777 landing short at Heathrow.
>>
>> OK - I looked it up. Technically this was fuel jelling - common with
>> diesel fuel in arctic conditions. In the case of the Rolls turbines,
>> it was a design fault in the fuel pre-heater unit which resulted in a
>> mandatory replacement with a redesigned heat exchanger.
>>
>> Different than the carb icing on a prop plane.
>
>It was ice in the fuel blocking the pre-heater, not fuel jelling. Get
>it straight.
So there was water in the fuel? There was an AD put out on those
engines requireing the replacement of the fuel pre-heater heat
exchanger is all I know "for sure".
I also know diesel and Jet A can gel in the cold, which is why
fuel-heaters are used on diesels, and I assume why they are used on
jets.