Roundsounds

One person cannot annoy or upset another person, it’s their choice whether that are annoyed or upset by your words. That is a fact.

In this wonderful country we all free to express our opinions.

I managed to see the whole show, your assumptions are spot on.

Aside from ramblings by a range of self promoting keyboard experts there is no evidence of AI-171 being linked to mental health issues (or aircraft system faults).

Air Nippon beat Virgin to it and managed over 130 degrees angle of bank. link to JTSB report

Have been twice, both times camped on-site near the Red Shed and can highly recommend it. Went to WalMart to pick up basic camping gear, left it with some locals for their grandkids to use.

I’m pretty sure this aircraft was used as a training airframe at Padstow TAFE for many years. A guy from Camden bought it and restored it to flying condition late 1990s.

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.

Not to shut down both engines. The systems architecture ensures this cannot occur.

The ignorant people who dream up this sort of rubbish obviously don’t understand the certification requirements for these types of airplane.

Maybe you should review what you’ve written against what you’ve quoted from the report. The report doesn’t say a signal to the fuel firewall shutoff valves caused them to close, it says the fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF. There’s no suggestion of a software or system logic failure. Facts are both FCS weren’t moved from RUN to CUTOFF causing a loss of thrust. What is not know is how or why this occurred. To suggest a software fault caused the loss of thrust; - ignores the report findings - displays a lack of understanding of Air Transport Category aircraft design criteria.

What makes this a great write up? It makes statements contrary to the AAIB report.

Cycling the FCS is a part of the dual eng failure memory items. The FCS weren’t cycled CUTOFF, then RUN, they were both moved to CUTOFF, then 10 plus secs later back to RUN. This not IAW the published memory items.

In the event of a dual engine failure the B787 starts the APU without crew action, which the report says it had commenced. There must have been sufficient RPM for the start sequence as the Left engine had relit and was starting to spoil up again.

It can be done, just not a procedure. If both places to CUTOFF in sequence the delay of 1 sec is reasonable.