I try, though I’ll admit I’m not always successful, to use correct grammar and spelling so that our foreign forumites have at least got a faint idea what I’m trying to say.

Mike,

A very valid point. I too found that the standard of my own English (written and spoken) improved when I stared dealing with overseas contacts, for whom English was a second or third language.

That said, I also agree with the view that language will evolve over time – however, that evolution should be gradual rather than the “genetically modified” rate of evolution we see today where laziness, text-speak, and the “street patois” favoured by “yoof” seem to be incorporated into the mainstream English language overnight.

Paul F

P.S. Great topic for discussion Kev35… and getting back to your original question (i.e Who is to blame?) – all of us I suppose, all too often we allow slipshod use of language to go unchallenged. My (teenage) children thought I was a real “old fart” when I phoned my local BBC TV station one evening to compalin about poor spelling of a screen caption on the 6:30pm bulletin – “Does it really matter, Dad, aren’t there more important things in life to worry about?” they asked…

T1940,

Thanks, but I was primarily going to try and find/copy them in response to AAs original request for help. If you have them and can send him copies, then it saves me digging my way through to them for a second time.

Of course, I am still happy to look for more info in Police or Fire service incident records of the time, which I believe are now held in the same county office/archives, if this helps build the picture further.

I would however, be interested to see copies of the photos, as I beleive the incident happened pretty close to my home. I may then be able to visit the site and try to take some similar photos for comparison.

Paul F

As AA knows, I have offerred to look for info in the Sussex County Records, but access to the office is pretty limited outside normal office hours, which isn’t too helpful as most of us have full time jobs that mean we cannot get there during normal office hours.

One thought, if the aircraft was flying from Greenham to France, it may have hit the South Coast slightly west of intended track, and then turned east and have been following the coast to look for it’s proper departure “crossing point”, or to confirm it’s position? That might explain why it was on the south side of the downs?

Visibility at the time appears to have been poor, so maybe the crew even believed they were over already the Channel coast and lost height, only to find themsleves at very low level over the Downs?

Paul F

Well done for whoever took the picture of the old Gatwick Beehive, very interesting and historic building, but is hard to find a recent picture of.

Definatly some odd choices there, entertaining none the less!

Ed oops see it was PaulF who took pic, nice one

Thanks, glad you like it – I tried hard to try to keep any of the modern office blocks out of the frame.

Even more have gone up in the ten to twelve months since I took that photo. I couldn’t help but wonder what the atmosphere would be like if all the modern cars surrounding it were replaced by a (replica) Rapide or two…

And I also wondered if the underground tunnel somewhere under my feet that linked the beehive to the old railway station on the London to Brighton railway line is still intact – I fear it may have been lost as part of the foundations/groundwork for one of the larger office developments that now effectively stand behind me as I took the photo 🙁 . The shot was taken looking pretty much ENE.

Paul F

Oh, and a belated Thanks to EN830 for providing the tools and developing and posting the results ofthe exercise, Thanks Ian.

Latest from AAIB a 6 page pdf explaining what it wasn’t, rather than what it was.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/S1-2008%20G-YMMM.pdf

Has anyone else actually read this latest update from AAIB? As Super Nimrod says, it seems to confirm lots of things that were NOT the cause (fuel temperature/waxing, water contamination, and lack of fuel all seem to have been eliminated etc), and seems to suggest that the fuel pumps were running properly etc, though suffering abnormal “cavitation” (which I assume means they were trying to pump a mix of fuel and gas/vapour/air rather than simply pumping “neat” fuel?), even though the fuel system did have plenty of fuel remaining.

It confirms the two engines were still developing power at levels above flight idle, but not at the levels demanded by the auto throttle or by the subsequent manual throttle selection by the crew – presumably the engines were simply not receiving enough fuel to spool up as demanded. It also suggests the problem did not occur simultaneously on both engines, but happened a few seconds apart.

It is interesting (or, worrying 😮 )to see the debris that was found in the fuel system though – piece of sticky tape, piece of brown paper, piece of plastic, and a plastic scraper. AAIB seem relatively unconcerned by this.

The only recommendation it contains relate to procedural changes that need to be put in place to ensure that checklists ensure systems are closed down in such a manner that two critical fuel valves are allowed to shut before power to them is switched off. In this incident it seems that the valves were inadvertantly left open, as power supply had been isolated before valves were closed, due to the way in which BA checklists were written and pre-evacuation tasks allocated between the flight deck crew. This unforseen sequence of events might have contributed to any post accident fire had it occurred – seems all aboard ‘YMMM may have been even luckier than we all realised.

AAIB investigation continues.
Paul F

Great photos

Great shots Paul, you know it’s been really cold when running water gets frozen solid. Haven’t seen shots like that for a while.

Cheers

Paul F

This lot don’t consider the fact that wind turbines (solar panels etc) have to be manufactured – in factories that use masses of power – from products dug out of the ground.

The employees who design and manufacture these things probably drive to work and use power at their workplace. Then the products have to be transported around the world.

Here here, just what I’ve been saying too….. Puts the zealots very much in the same category as the green wellie brigade they detest, who trade in their perfectly servicable CO2 belching 4x4s in favour of a brand spanking new hybrid version, supposedly justifying the change on environmental grounds, while really using that as an excuse to cover their comnsumerist desire to get another brand new car on the driveway. Just how much energy and natural resource has been spent in making their new eco-friendly (well, marginally less eco-unfriendly 😉 ) toy, as compared to what might have been spent keeping the old one going till it was completely worn out?

By all means replace goods, with less damaging ones, when they are properly worn out, but don’t change them for change’s or vanity’s sake, that’s simply not eco-responsible to my way of thinking? We’ve only got one planet,and when the natural resources are gone they’re gone – it doesn’t matter what they’ve been spent on… and replacement/consumable parts consumed during a car’s lifetime probably “cost” less than building a whole new vehicle from scratch.

A company I know very well is currently calculating it’s green footprint (another “Eco-trendy” thing to do), but although it’s goods are made to order globally, they will only start to count towards the comapny’s footprint once the company takes ownership after they land at a UK port – so all the energy spent in making them, and making the starting materials that go into them, and in getting the staff to the factories to make them etc, plus any energy spent making the ship/aeroplane that brought them to UK can simply be ignored, as can the CO2 spent by UK staff in their normal commute to their sites of work – so even if employees travel 200miles a day every working day then that carbon does not count towards the company footprint! What a load of bull****e 😮

Paul F