IBob

It seems to me he's grasping at straws.........but I can agree with his larger point: that it's all speculation unless we get a good look at the detail of the data. And until then, it is wrong to be suggesting where the error/s may lie.

I've jumped (from) a couple of Drovers, Queensland in the '70s and later in NZ. The Qld one was a hoot: they loaded 10 people in it, took off and spent about an hour getting to 4000'. At which point they tossed a couple of volunteers out to lighten the load. Quite some time after that, and when they still had not made it to 8000', the rest of us retired to the pub, from where we could see them distantly and forlornly circling as the sun went down. I believe after that they swapped the props, which produced some improvement. Oh, and I don't think that one had any starters on the motors, they all had to be swung. A strange aircraft: seemed to fly in a distinctly tail down attitude, even when not actually trying to climb. Perhaps a result of increasing the dihedral on the horizontal stabiliser to stop it also wagging it's tail as it proceeded.....

Megaloop, It is certainly confusing: welcome to the wonderful world of ICP documentation. Great little aircraft, though! I have no experience of this, but your 07-07-51 (July 2007) would put you well beyond 01-05-51 (January 2005, or May 2001, whichever that is). By which point presumably they had improved the construction. It is odd that this work involves replacing parts with parts with identical numbers. And good luck to anyone trying to do two wings in 13.5hrs. I can only think this is ICP factory time, with all required tools and jigs and experience.

I guess if it happens at cruise speed, it's more likely to blow the doors off.

The Foxbat does not use the firewall-to-wingroots steelwork to support the screen. The screen is held/supported only at top, bottom and sides. I think that's the case?

https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=1615FC4A-7175-4D37-8CAE-2DA78E64A857

We had one of those in NZ a few years back: same thing, screen let go and doors immediately blew off. He was less fortunate and then pitched over on landing.

Well, there you have it: once upon a time the army didn't fly that sector if there was inbound/outbound airfield traffic. Then somehow they began doing that...........

I think it's right to say the US glorifies and lionises it's military. To an astonishing degree in some of the US military centres, where the leadership are treated like nobility. I wonder if at times that translates to the military coming first in whatever they do.......with civilian activities expected to fit around that. A mindset.............?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360773615/fighter-jet-performs-nail-biting-low-pass

I recall reading somewhere that he was not a particularly gifted pilot.......but he had a lot of shooting experience, could have been game birds in which case he'd haver a good eye with a moving target and where to point the gun......

Probably two reasons for that, Onetrack. I believe what is being reported here is so-called 'leaked' information. So we have no idea how authoritative it is. That, and a tendency for folk to fill in the gaps with their own suppositions.

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.

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

Certainly the information released to date indicates that, Roundsounds. However, given the circumstances, I'm sure you would agree that all possibilities need to be investigated.