Roundsounds
-
Posts
1,055 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by Roundsounds
-
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.
-
The only way to start a B787 is via the EEC Autostart function, you cannot complete a manual start in a B787. There is no doubt the FCS were moved to CUTOFF and subsequently returned to RUN. The only questions to be answered is who and why?
-
What the “experts” on this site are missing is the fact engine systems operate independently. There is no way a software fault could cause both engines to fail within 1 second of each other. There is no doubt both fuel control switches were moved to cutoff, then 10 seconds or so later back to run. What hasn’t been established is who did it and why.
-
I don’t know what you watched, but I can guarantee you there are no indications of fuel valve positions in a B787 displayed during takeoff.
-
Nope
-
The only way the person querying the FCS position would know they were in the Cutoff position would be to observe the switch position. There are no indications of fuel valve positions. Again, I point out these systems are in no way connected to each other. The chances of both systems experiencing the same fault within 1 second of each other are too remote.
-
The AAIB report states one of the crew observed the Fuel Control Switches in the Cutoff position and questioned the other crew member. The switch position is tracked by the EAFR.
-
Cannot happen to both engines at the same time (or within 1 sec as per the report). All systems associated with the engines are completely independent. It’s like suggesting a couple of PC21s flying in close formation both flame out at the same time due to a system fault in one aircraft.
-
“July 8 (Reuters) - The investigation into the Air India flight 171 crash has zeroed in on the movement of the engine fuel control switches, following an analysis of the Boeing 787's flight and voice data recorders, the Air Current reported on Tuesday.” focus seems to be “on the movement of the engine fuel control switches”
-
There are no design faults, contaminated fuel or any technical reason as to why the airplane crashed.
-
The B787 has a very advanced asymmetry correction system which becomes active above 60KIAS. Once airborne you could take your feet off the rudder pedals, fail an engine and the flight control system will compensate for the asymmetry.
-
Completely independent systems, cannot result in a dual engine failure.
-
I would agree with those comments on other Boeing types, however the B787 gust / asymmetry correction would mask the minor stagger in asymmetric thrust caused by the minute delay in fuel cutoff.
-
There’s a lot of inertia in those large fans, the time taken to move both switches to cutoff would be less than a couple of seconds. There maybe be little to no discernible yaw. It ja also possible to use one hand to move both to cuttoff.
-
My bet is it’s not just rumour or speculation.
-
A downwind call suits ATC at Class D airports (formerly GAAP) for sequencing. A base call is way more useful at Class G airports.
-
Bottom line is if you’re a private pilot and not based at or regularly operating from a Security Controlled airport get an AVID. You could argue any pilot who doesn’t have the need for an ASIC is breaking the law by obtaining one. When I have to pay for my own ASIC I’ll be switching to an AVID.
