Jump to content

Roundsounds

Members
  • Posts

    1,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Roundsounds

  1. 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.
  2. It can be done, just not a procedure. If both places to CUTOFF in sequence the delay of 1 sec is reasonable.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. “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”
  10. There are no design faults, contaminated fuel or any technical reason as to why the airplane crashed.
  11. 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.
  12. Completely independent systems, cannot result in a dual engine failure.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. My bet is it’s not just rumour or speculation.
  16. A downwind call suits ATC at Class D airports (formerly GAAP) for sequencing. A base call is way more useful at Class G airports.
  17. 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.
  18. RAAus now RAWas
  19. Just an acknowledgement would be ok
  20. Get around to it shortly? It’s not like they didn’t know the outcome, should’ve had something out to members the day the report was released. Says a lot about the culture of the place.
  21. It will be interesting to see what happens to the various office bearers over time. I’m not sure whether you’ve read the Coroner’s report? It seems some actions by office bearers were not in accordance with documented procedures. The issues of concern to the Coroner relate to action / (inaction?) once the question of validity of the pilot’s RPC came to light within the organisation.
  22. Your response simply reinforces my comments. You do not need to nor should judge / sense airspeed, particularly when below 100’ AGL, the effect of wind has resulted in many low level stalls by mistaking ground speed as airspeed. You need to know the appropriate attitudes and power settings for various configurations and phases of flight. If they are set the airspeed will follow, no judgement required. I have logged over 6500 hours of flight instruction in tandem seating aeroplanes without ready access to flight instruments. This taught me to rely on attitude and airspeed, which I had been taught but really only made sense when that’s all I had. Students would often look around and ask where my ASI, ALT, Tacho were hidden as I was able to fly so accurately - nothing to with any special skills, just because I was flying visually attitude and setting power by ear. Until you are actively taught these skills you won’t develop them. You should be setting the appropriate power and attitude for the phase of flight, allow them to take effect, trim, then check airspeed. I’ll guarantee your backup ASI uses a common pitot / static source, so will only display same invalid reading. Most errors are the caused by a fault in the pitot / static system.
  23. You’ve totalled missed the point! if you set the appropriate configuration and the appropriate attitude and power setting, airspeed will be correct - no need for an ASI. You’d be surprised as to the number of aeroplanes I’ve flown over the years with inaccurate ASIs. The typical problem being pin holes in the pitot or static lines.
×
×
  • Create New...