All Activity

Hi All, Recreational Flying (.com) will soon come to an end...BUT, Aircraft Pilots (.com) will be born. This site has outlived most other sites around the world having been going for over 22 years now providing a great, informative, helpful, vast resource to all recreational aviators but it is time to be more comprehensive in helping all types of aviators, no matter what you all fly. The features that are available to you cover the needs of all, it is not just a Forum site, but features like Groups, Blogs, different types of Media like Articles, Movies, Books etc, ALL types of Aircraft in the Aircraft Section and the Resources section provides tools for every kind of pilot. Also Clear Prop (.com.au) will also be moving to Aircraft Pilots (.com) and currently a Single Sign On (SSO) is being developed to provide a single registration and login system to both the forums etc and shop. When it all happens both Recreational Flying (.com) and Clear Prop (.com.au) will have redirects to Aircraft Pilots (.com) to make it easier for users to make the transition. HOWEVER, if your Email Address in your account settings here at Recreational Flying (.com) is no longer active, incorrect or not working in any way you will be LOCKED OUT of the new site. To check your email address, click your avatar at the top of the main menu and then click "Account Settings": Thanks and stay tuned for some updates

I saw a C-180 where the bird went back to the Mainspar. Over Griffith in a Beech A-36 I only just missed a Large wedgetail at 8000 ft Seemed as though it was asleep in a thermal. They will easily go through most light aircraft's windscreens. Nev

I don't like the idea of having an "O" ring there anyhow.. IF it's not there, It can't fail .Nev

The one that hit me was in attack mode. Hit the wing near the fuselage. Wakes you up. Pushed the leading edge back quite a way.

10 seconds is a LONG time to move the switches to ON. Another thing is It's better to have the gear DOWN when crash landing other than ditching. nev

it would have scared sh#t out of you wouldn't it. did it come through your windscreen. i have heard of a truck in wa that had a wedgetail eagle come through the windscreen and was still alive in the cabin. trouble with them is they feed on roadkill and don't move fast enough when you get near them.

Garfly, the timeline is definitive, there's no place for ASSUMING any action. The fuel cutoff switches were moved to OFF, and then returned to ON, between 10 and 14 seconds later. That's not cycling the switches to reset the engine EEC's, as recommended in the POH checklist, you would expect a cycling of the switches would be much faster - and the timeline says the engine thrust ceased AFTER the switches were moved. Take a look at the above video I linked to, starting at 27:33, and stop the video at 29:19 when the timeline appears. Capt Sam Thomas' assumption is, that a double engine failure can happen spontaneously, but nothing in the B787 design, nor in the timeline, support his assumption. In fact, his assumption is based on a conspiracy to blame the crew. Conspiracy theories are easy to promote, but far harder to prove, as they rely on multiple actions in concert, in a planned path, by multiple agencies or persons, and all with a common supposed agenda. As a result, conspiracy theories should get short shrift in any professional investigation.

Happened to me a couple of months ago in the middle of the Nullabor ! Lots of damage

But, to reiterate, that action might have been the (expected) reaction to a double engine failure rather than the cause of it: “Here (in the AAIB prelim report) there is a reference to the pilot cutting off, let’s assume that the pilots cut off both the switches and then put it back again. Now that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do as per the checklist if you lose thrust on both engines." Capt. Sam Thomas. See the minute from around 07:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ_oNlBE_o8

And of course, sometimes whatever fault or design flaw caused one thing to go haywire occurs at a similar time in other devices of the same manufacture date.

The blokes in the video below are very, very good. They're aircraft maintainers and crash investigators, and they're three proper experts sitting around having a clinical discussion of the facts. They're not scripted, as are many of the YooToob "crash experts". They savage a lot of the airline captains who present as crash experts, but lack maintainer and crash investigation knowledge. They absolutely slam the wild theorists, the conspiracy merchants and the outright loonies who propose answers with little logical reasoning and even less technical knowledge. They point out that the lag in providing information by the Indians was a factor that has led to stupid opinions on the reasons for the crash. They also point out the preliminary report information is deficient, and hope that further AAIB information will be more enlightening. But they come to the logical conclusion that no matter what the potential for computer or data glitches, the simple fact remains that the switches were physically moved, they were moved by one of the crew, they were physically returned to run by one of the crew, and that the fuel shutoff valves functioned precisely as designed - from off and back to on, on instructions from the physical movement of the cutoff switches. A software glitch must be eliminated in this conclusion, as it is basically impossible for it to happen in the above defined events timeline. The conclusion can only be that the cutoff switches were moved in a criminal act, or in a "brain fart" action that seems incredible, but which as we know, can happen, because humans are humans, and they do stupid things. This video is a little long-winded, and you can skip the few minutes in the centre where they talk to an underwriter in an "infomercial" - but overall, it is a worthy watch.

.... welcomed, during his present State sponsored visit to Tahiti, where he attended the Bastille Day celebrations yesterday, and he was bombarded by a group of nubile Wahinis as shown in the below photo. Cappy, like his ancestor, was always the complete gentleman and didn't even .....

I agree with all your above Onetrack. I programmed decades of automation (though not in aircraft). I had a lot to do with logging plant data, also examining it. And I have a strong troubleshooting background. On that basis I would like to add this: There are lots of posts here that assume the EAFR cannot be wrong, in either the data it logs, or the timestamps. So there seems to be a general acceptance that certain exact things happened at certain exact times. While I have no doubt that the people who design these systems do everything they can to ensure that, we cannot be sure that is so. The data accuracy depends on where the data is sourced and how robust that source is (in this case in accurately reflecting the state of some switches). We should not be simply assuming that the EAFR 'looks' at the switches. It is entirely possible that it 'looks at' something in the software that is interpreting the condition of those switches. In which case there is more to consider than just a couple of switches. Regarding the timestamps: the EAFR is sharing a common central comms bus with many other things. And it is capturing a broad array of data. Whether it grabs all this data pretty much in one burst, or a bit at a time, I don't know. But any major disruption of those central comms...or indeed any failure to answer by whatever provides the data... has the potential to put the time stamps out from the actual events.The timestamp is when the EAFR managed to source the data. We need to be confident of rapid uninterrupted data access for those timestamps to be taken as accurate. I write this not to further muddy the waters. But from the info provided, I think we should be saying 'The switches were logged off/on at these specific times.' Not 'The switches went off/on at these specific times.' I should end by saying that close inspection of the captured data and of how and where that data is sourced would clarify much of the above. And I am hopeful that there are impartial investigators with access to do that.

......relegate both himself and Turbo to history as minor players, on a par with Capt James Cooks crew, who fell under the spell of the Wahinis, and who had to be physically dragged back on board the Endeavour. In fact, to this very day (as Cappy is one of Capt Cooks direct descendants), Cappy immediately turns into a dribbling incoherent shell of his normal self, immediately he sights a Wahini in a traditional costume (that's topless, of course). Cappys displays of socially unacceptable and uninhibited behaviour in this arena, have led to him being...........

As with all investigations trying to discover all the facts, the timeline, the motives, and to examine all the potential scenarios, the worst approach is to rapidly come to a conclusion, and to then make the facts fit the conclusion one has come to. Many Police forces have failed dismally when trying to solve major crimes with limited evidence, damaged crime scenes, lies, and often, seemingly no motive - because they approached the cases with preformed ideas, and ignored seemingly small pieces of information, instantly considering them as having no value, and dismissing them from the investigation. In essence, despite air crash investigations being based on avoiding the placement of blame on any one party, the principles of crime investigation should also be applied to air crash investigations, to ensure that even the tiniest piece of evidence of the crash cause or causes, is not ignored, or dismissed out of hand. There is sufficient power pressures at play in this major crash (almost on a par with the Erebus crash), that suspicion is harboured in many quarters, that political or corporate pressure will be applied to ensure that either Air India, Boeing, or even the Indian Aviation regulator come out of the investigation, squeaky clean. An interesting factor now is that a U.K. based law firm, intent on placing blame on a particular party involved in the crash, has commenced its own separate crash investigation, utilising the skills and knowledge of a very senior commander from the IAF. I do feel that this law firms investigation may be skewed from day one - and they are still reliant on the AAIB providing them with information, whereupon the AAIB may withhold critical information if it reflects badly on Air India or Indian aviation training, or the Indian Aviation regulator. However, it's perhaps not a bad thing to have another investigation running alongside the primary AAIB one, to maybe uncover facts or issues that the AAIB may overlook, or ignore. I've seen one of the victims relatives describe the preliminary report as "reading like a product review", rather than placing all the facts on the table. The preliminary reports failure to address the timing of the crew voices on the CVR, and to identify those particular voices, is something that seems to be a major failure in the report and has numerous aviation experts carrying on at length about the 10 second delay in returning the fuel cutoff switches to run. That 10 second delay could easily be explained if the voice records had been given a precise timeline in the preliminary report. There would almost certainly be a "WTF" few seconds in the cockpit as the engines spooled down, power to the displays flickered (as it does in the switching from the primary generators to backup power), and a visual check of thrust control positions was carried out, immediately after major thrust failure.

..... she fell under Turbo's wild, animalistic & sexually ingratiating spell, Cappy became outrageously jealous, even to the extent that Iolani's talents & prowess had the potential for Cappy to fall out with his half a century long best mate and combat buddy. But then Cappy realised that to fall out over a mere Princess would ......

I could say ! . Curtis sent me the wrong one , so no good , & expensive . The oring free from my local " fuel injection " shop . & working good ! . The different thread ! , straight or tapered . spacesailor

That's been covered. Nev

After 30+ years in the computer industry... 'Cannot Occur' is not something I can agree with The coincidental errors occur with usually the most inconvenient timing

Just curious, what might the cost (in AU) be of: The correct "O" ring ? Replacing the whole unit ? 😈

Some comments here are clearly so one-eyed and judgemental, I've taken to just skipping over them. Here are 787 Oral Notes that go some way towards describing the general layout of the electronics and automation: https://pdfcoffee.com/787-oral-notesdocx-2-pdf-free.html

I reckon best to replace the valve with a new one. I carry two small size O rings as temporary repair in my spares kit but the seal is a square o ring shape. You can buy them ex USA, but best just get a new whole item.

Let’s focus on the AAIB report and not speculate. So you’re speculating the AAIB, FAA, BOEING and GE are all covering up both Left and Right FADECs failed within 1 second of each other, then around 10 seconds later they recovered? Speaking of cowboys, if the 737 MAX crew had followed SOPs neither of those aircraft would have crashed.

You can replace the oring. Need to obtain correct one from an aircraft maintenance organisation. If you choose to replace the valve then you need the correct thread, there are several similar looking threads in use. Take your valve to the your value to the maintenance shop and they will advise.

.......Committee for better Drainage and Golf Courses. Oahu had not been the same since Cappy and Turbo lost their beloved cars partner, Princes Iolani on that terribe night when.......