July 17, 2025, 00:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924060
The switch is directly connected to the coils of a latching relay. That latching relay is directly connected to the coils of the spar valve. There is no digital logic device in the way,
The position of the switch is monitored (through a different set of contacts) by the EAFR (twice). The position of the spar valve is monitored by the EAFR.
Thus the recorder sees (twice) that the switch is moved, and that the valve moved in response.
Subjects
EAFR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Spar Valves
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 01:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924069
tdracer excellently summarised. But I'll confirm.
The switch is directly connected to the coils of a latching relay. That latching relay is directly connected to the coils of the spar valve. There is no digital logic device in the way,
The position of the switch is monitored (through a different set of contacts) by the EAFR (twice). The position of the spar valve is monitored by the EAFR.
Thus the recorder sees (twice) that the switch is moved, and that the valve moved in response.
The switch is directly connected to the coils of a latching relay. That latching relay is directly connected to the coils of the spar valve. There is no digital logic device in the way,
The position of the switch is monitored (through a different set of contacts) by the EAFR (twice). The position of the spar valve is monitored by the EAFR.
Thus the recorder sees (twice) that the switch is moved, and that the valve moved in response.
Subjects
EAFR
High Pressure Shutoff Valve
Spar Valves
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 07:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924163
It's easy to go, "it must be suicide, there's nothing else in the preliminary report that explains it". Well, the things that might turn out to be a factor are not in the preliminary report because they're still being investigated. Fuel samples. The switches themselves, which suffered fire damage. A thorough understanding what can cause the transitions logged on the EAFR, and what did cause them.
YOU are one of the sources of "speculation of unknown origin".
Subjects
AAIB (All)
EAFR
Preliminary Report
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 12:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924331
That's better than being at the mercy of speculation from the AAIB.
It's easy to go, "it must be suicide, there's nothing else in the preliminary report that explains it". Well, the things that might turn out to be a factor are not in the preliminary report because they're still being investigated. Fuel samples. The switches themselves, which suffered fire damage. A thorough understanding what can cause the transitions logged on the EAFR, and what did cause them.
YOU are one of the sources of "speculation of unknown origin".
It's easy to go, "it must be suicide, there's nothing else in the preliminary report that explains it". Well, the things that might turn out to be a factor are not in the preliminary report because they're still being investigated. Fuel samples. The switches themselves, which suffered fire damage. A thorough understanding what can cause the transitions logged on the EAFR, and what did cause them.
YOU are one of the sources of "speculation of unknown origin".
Subjects
AAIB (All)
EAFR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Preliminary Report
RUN/CUTOFF
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 15:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924443
Oldrightie
I am not aware of a part of the prelim report, second paragraph being discussed anywhere. Something I find, if I'm correct, not discussed yet for me surely very significant.
"The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1\x92s core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery . The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11"
Forgive my now 20 years into retirement as an F/O on the B737 400 and A320/21 but I still retain my lifelong avid interest in all things aviation. So am I correct in thinking this paragraph indicates significantly that eng2, right hand, core compressor had failed, albeit not explosively? It relit and fuel was being "re-introduced repeatedly "but could not arrest core speed deceleration". From day one I believed that no 2 failed after V1 and that the automatic correction for this on the 787 hid all but a possibly apparent small nose right on its climb out. Additionally I surmised that with all the warnings this produced, the low altitude and few seconds to address such a failure, the first recycle was offered up to the no 1 engine switch, in haste. The immediate result then RAT extension, a check on the engine parameters and an action on the no 2 switch, again in haste on realisation that was down on N2, then, sadly too late, No 1 recycled successfully. Unlike No 2. Heaven knows, a similar mistake was made on the Kegworth B737, when all he time in the world was available compared to AI171.
To me the long debate here about suicide is very unprofessional and surely this factual part of the report, has masses more credence, regardless of the consequences facing the AI crew.
If this bit about No 2 engine report is as I interpret, I would at least hope, if not already, someone else has picked it up, or at least it will get more attention ere long. God bless all the people so badly affected and I pray the cause will be one day revealed and not be buried to protect the money men. Has been known.
"The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1\x92s core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery . The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11"
Forgive my now 20 years into retirement as an F/O on the B737 400 and A320/21 but I still retain my lifelong avid interest in all things aviation. So am I correct in thinking this paragraph indicates significantly that eng2, right hand, core compressor had failed, albeit not explosively? It relit and fuel was being "re-introduced repeatedly "but could not arrest core speed deceleration". From day one I believed that no 2 failed after V1 and that the automatic correction for this on the 787 hid all but a possibly apparent small nose right on its climb out. Additionally I surmised that with all the warnings this produced, the low altitude and few seconds to address such a failure, the first recycle was offered up to the no 1 engine switch, in haste. The immediate result then RAT extension, a check on the engine parameters and an action on the no 2 switch, again in haste on realisation that was down on N2, then, sadly too late, No 1 recycled successfully. Unlike No 2. Heaven knows, a similar mistake was made on the Kegworth B737, when all he time in the world was available compared to AI171.
To me the long debate here about suicide is very unprofessional and surely this factual part of the report, has masses more credence, regardless of the consequences facing the AI crew.
If this bit about No 2 engine report is as I interpret, I would at least hope, if not already, someone else has picked it up, or at least it will get more attention ere long. God bless all the people so badly affected and I pray the cause will be one day revealed and not be buried to protect the money men. Has been known.
Subjects
AI171
EAFR
Parameters
Preliminary Report
RAT (All)
Relight
V1
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 17:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924521
Non-intentional behaviours or impulsive action... that's a different matter. In that instance, the pilot is likely not to have given it any thought - as per your post from which I partially quoted just now.
Subjects
EAFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 18:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924539
An interesting quotation from this: "She highlighted a similar incident during which one of the engines suddenly shut down midflight on an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 during its final approach to Osaka, Japan, in 2019.
Investigators later found that the aircraft’s software had mistakenly interpreted the plane as being on the ground, triggering the thrust control malfunction accommodation system, which automatically moved the fuel switch from “run” to “cutoff” without any action from the pilots."
Is it also interesting that this incident occurred at the time of ground-to-air transition?
Investigators later found that the aircraft’s software had mistakenly interpreted the plane as being on the ground, triggering the thrust control malfunction accommodation system, which automatically moved the fuel switch from “run” to “cutoff” without any action from the pilots."
Is it also interesting that this incident occurred at the time of ground-to-air transition?
The TCMA shuts down one or more engines - but it doesn't move the switches to cut-off in any magical way. TCMA directly operates the fuel valves - but the switches stay on.
Of course there is no entry for the switches being operated on the EAFR when TCMA shuts down an engine!
Subjects
EAFR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 19:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924560
Totally wrong.
The TCMA shuts down one or more engines - but it doesn't move the switches to cut-off in any magical way. TCMA directly operates the fuel valves - but the switches stay on.
Of course there is no entry for the switches being operated on the EAFR when TCMA shuts down an engine!
The TCMA shuts down one or more engines - but it doesn't move the switches to cut-off in any magical way. TCMA directly operates the fuel valves - but the switches stay on.
Of course there is no entry for the switches being operated on the EAFR when TCMA shuts down an engine!
Subjects
EAFR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 20:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924609
Totally wrong.
The TCMA shuts down one or more engines - but it doesn't move the switches to cut-off in any magical way. TCMA directly operates the fuel valves - but the switches stay on.
Of course there is no entry for the switches being operated on the EAFR when TCMA shuts down an engine!
The TCMA shuts down one or more engines - but it doesn't move the switches to cut-off in any magical way. TCMA directly operates the fuel valves - but the switches stay on.
Of course there is no entry for the switches being operated on the EAFR when TCMA shuts down an engine!
Subjects
EAFR
EICAS
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 17, 2025, 21:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924625
Eng1_TCMA_Shutdown_Local_EEC_A
Eng1_TCMA_Shutdown_Local_EEC_B
Eng2_TCMA_Shutdown_Local_EEC_A
Eng2_TCMA_Shutdown_Local_EEC_B
Subjects
EAFR
EICAS
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Parameters
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 18, 2025, 00:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924737
"There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB." - This will have been verified by the investigation team fairly rapidly. Verified reportable fact, included in the preliminary report.
Yes in the final report they would be in a position to make a statement like that. But in the preliminary - No.
Subjects
EAFR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Preliminary Report
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 18, 2025, 00:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924760
Several posts (I think - Pls don't ask me to find and quote) - have made statements to the effect of "we'll never know which person moved the switches".
Question to our active flight crew.
The EAFR records column / yoke angle and input force . It will be easy to show who was controlling the aircraft at any moment. Do you think that if for example the FO, whilst actively flying the aircraft was the one to reset the switches back to run, in changing to a single hand on the yoke and turning to the switches, there would be any detectable change in input force / angle ? Or would that detail be lost in the noise?
Question to our active flight crew.
The EAFR records column / yoke angle and input force . It will be easy to show who was controlling the aircraft at any moment. Do you think that if for example the FO, whilst actively flying the aircraft was the one to reset the switches back to run, in changing to a single hand on the yoke and turning to the switches, there would be any detectable change in input force / angle ? Or would that detail be lost in the noise?
Subjects
EAFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
July 18, 2025, 00:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924765
Because the preliminary report can only contain verified factual information.
"There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB." - This will have been verified by the investigation team fairly rapidly. Verified reportable fact, included in the preliminary report.
This could not have been done by the team in the time available. Bear in mind that the EAFR was not read until almost 2 weeks after the crash. Before that point there would have been little focus on the fuel switches, which were recovered in the run position (verifiable and reported). Once attention was directed to the switches, a small team will form just to forensically examine those switches. They will likely take WEEKS to even begin the detailed examination of the switches. Those switches have been through a crash and a fire. They dare not move them until every possible non-destructive examination technique has been used. What do you test first? just pulling the sleeve will move something. Moving the lever will move the contacts. Did fingerprints survive the fire?. You would want to x-ray them, measure wear on the locking, look at contact position. Electrically test the terminals. Does it need to be opened? They would get examples from the manufacturer and destructively test them.
Yes in the final report they would be in a position to make a statement like that. But in the preliminary - No.
"There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB." - This will have been verified by the investigation team fairly rapidly. Verified reportable fact, included in the preliminary report.
This could not have been done by the team in the time available. Bear in mind that the EAFR was not read until almost 2 weeks after the crash. Before that point there would have been little focus on the fuel switches, which were recovered in the run position (verifiable and reported). Once attention was directed to the switches, a small team will form just to forensically examine those switches. They will likely take WEEKS to even begin the detailed examination of the switches. Those switches have been through a crash and a fire. They dare not move them until every possible non-destructive examination technique has been used. What do you test first? just pulling the sleeve will move something. Moving the lever will move the contacts. Did fingerprints survive the fire?. You would want to x-ray them, measure wear on the locking, look at contact position. Electrically test the terminals. Does it need to be opened? They would get examples from the manufacturer and destructively test them.
Yes in the final report they would be in a position to make a statement like that. But in the preliminary - No.
Subjects
EAFR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Preliminary Report
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
November 07, 2025, 23:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11985044
If that is the lawsuit based on
this filing
, then you're in for a treat. Same crowd that delivered
this 'report'
, which seems to be a mash-up of all the various conspiracy theories (aft EAFR fire damaged so must have been a battery fire? Check).
Disappointing for someone with what seem to be remarkable credentials:
It is technically just garbage.
Disappointing for someone with what seem to be remarkable credentials:
The founder of the organization is Captain Amit Singh, he is a senior management
professional with over 17000 hours on Boeing - 777 and Airbus - 320. He has
also been associated with the start-up of two airlines, viz Air Asia and IndiGo,
and has held the posts of: Chief of Safety, AirAsia, Director Flight Operations,
AirAsia, Chief Pilot Training, IndiGo and Fleet Captain Safety/ Technical
Interglobe Aviation Ltd. He is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society,
London,
professional with over 17000 hours on Boeing - 777 and Airbus - 320. He has
also been associated with the start-up of two airlines, viz Air Asia and IndiGo,
and has held the posts of: Chief of Safety, AirAsia, Director Flight Operations,
AirAsia, Chief Pilot Training, IndiGo and Fleet Captain Safety/ Technical
Interglobe Aviation Ltd. He is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society,
London,
Subjects
EAFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
November 28, 2025, 20:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11997382
original source:
https://thefederal.com/category/busi...failure-217674
The Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), a critical post-crash distress beacon, was never activated, as per the AAIB report. It was recovered intact in the wreckage, yet it was silent.A CCS/core network failure would not by itself stop the transmission from an ELT’s automatic g-switch — which is a gravity (g) switch with a sensor that detects sudden changes in acceleration (g-forces) that typically occur during a crash.
That is, unless the ELT’s antenna and wiring had melted in a fire — and one possible pointer to that is a Category A fault logged on AI 171’s Nitrogen Generation System (NGS), a safety feature Boeing added to prevent fuel tank fires in the aftermath of the Trans World Airlines Flight 800’s midair explosion due to a central fuel tank ignition in 1996.
The NGS works by continuously flooding the tail fuel tank’s ullage (the empty space above the fuel) with nitrogen-rich air, displacing oxygen and thereby preventing the build-up of flammable vapours.
If the NGS were not functioning, the oxygen levels around the aft-fuel tank bay may have been dangerously high. In that scenario, even a small spark—possibly from an electric arc or surge—could ignite a localised fuel-air vapour fire. That would have burnt the wiring and antenna of the ELT and wiring, connectors, and housing of tail-section black box or the aft Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR). And this scenario would be in line with the AAIB report, which shows the tail section was more structurally intact compared to the nose.
That is, unless the ELT’s antenna and wiring had melted in a fire — and one possible pointer to that is a Category A fault logged on AI 171’s Nitrogen Generation System (NGS), a safety feature Boeing added to prevent fuel tank fires in the aftermath of the Trans World Airlines Flight 800’s midair explosion due to a central fuel tank ignition in 1996.
The NGS works by continuously flooding the tail fuel tank’s ullage (the empty space above the fuel) with nitrogen-rich air, displacing oxygen and thereby preventing the build-up of flammable vapours.
If the NGS were not functioning, the oxygen levels around the aft-fuel tank bay may have been dangerously high. In that scenario, even a small spark—possibly from an electric arc or surge—could ignite a localised fuel-air vapour fire. That would have burnt the wiring and antenna of the ELT and wiring, connectors, and housing of tail-section black box or the aft Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR). And this scenario would be in line with the AAIB report, which shows the tail section was more structurally intact compared to the nose.
There's a good 20m of cabin between the centre fuel tanks (there is no 'aft fuel tank bay' on a 787) and the ELT/aft EAFR which are IIRC more-or-less above the rear doors.
The rest isn't much better.
I also see no mention of the fact that virtually everything in the CCS/CDN/CCRs is at least duplicated.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 29th November 2025 at 03:07 . Reason: Add source of the quote
Subjects
AAIB (All)
DFDR
EAFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
December 24, 2025, 11:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12010358
Hi @ all,
does someone has more information about the so-called 'Golden Chassis'? Does only Boeing has it or are there several of them, which are not owned by Boeing, worldwide available? How does this Chassis work and can the readout be counter-checked? And is it possible to manipulate them?
Regards
does someone has more information about the so-called 'Golden Chassis'? Does only Boeing has it or are there several of them, which are not owned by Boeing, worldwide available? How does this Chassis work and can the readout be counter-checked? And is it possible to manipulate them?
Regards
https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=49252
Generally, data from damaged flight recorders is downloaded after sourcing Golden Chassis and relevant download cables from other accident investigation authorities.
In the current investigation, AAIB on Saturday said the Golden Chassis or the identical EAFR unit and download cables required to download data from EAFR were sourced from the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB).
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/a...-an-air-crash/
The crash-survivable memory unit (CSMU) is the most critical component, as it stores the valuable flight data. If necessary, specialists transfer data chips into a golden chassis, a specialized device that prevents further data loss while allowing a safe download. “We have in the laboratory every western-made flight recorder, ordered from the manufacturers with one simple modification: a modification that turns off any further writing of data,” Payne explained.
https://safetycompass.wordpress.com/...-recorder-lab/
[img alt="A shelf unit housing nearly every known type of flight data recorder.
These surrogate recorders are known as 'Golden Chassis'."]https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x2000/recorders_copy_d214c286ab80e3503be1845ff4dd875d18f362b1.jpg[/img]
A shelf unit housing nearly every known type of flight data recorder. These surrogate recorders are known as “Golden Chassis”.
I believe the French BEA have a similarly well-stocked store of flight recorders. Other agencies might, as well.
Subjects
AAIB (All)
DFDR
EAFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 24, 2026, 20:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12026564
Non-paywalled version:
https://www.aol.com/articles/sabotag...060100148.html
There's the old "the RAT deployed early" (assuming it always takes a full 6 seconds to spool up), the water leak, the "can't move both switches in a second", and new "the aft FDR looks like it burned before the crash". And this, which is as yet unsubstantiated, and is likely not relevant at all:
There's the old "the RAT deployed early" (assuming it always takes a full 6 seconds to spool up), the water leak, the "can't move both switches in a second", and new "the aft FDR looks like it burned before the crash". And this, which is as yet unsubstantiated, and is likely not relevant at all:
whilst intentional action is the most obvious explanation one can’t ignore data and technical grounds if one is also going to dismiss counter theories on technical grounds
I still don’t believe we have got a clear answer on the recording interval of the engine cutoff switch channel, if it’s 1s then the ‘debunking’ by saying it can be done very quickly is moot as (near) instant would record as 1s I believe
I still don’t believe we have got a clear answer on the recording interval of the engine cutoff switch channel, if it’s 1s then the ‘debunking’ by saying it can be done very quickly is moot as (near) instant would record as 1s I believe
and the RAT element is obviously very relevant, if RAT deployment is not recorded then one has to infer when it deployed based on when it delivered hydraulic/electric capability. And this will come down to counting seconds, any indication that the RAT may have deployed before the fuel cutoffs were recorded as moved is obviously hugely consequential
The engines ran down after the switches were recorded moving. Even if the RAT deployed, that does not suggest that the crew switched the engines off because of an engine failure.
No crew is going to shut down the engines down simply because a RAT deploys unexpectedly.
it’s easy to dismiss these narratives as vested interests but let’s be honest everyone has a vested interest here and blaming the pilots has been the go to when in doubt for a very very long time- probably as long as aviation has existed
in the absence of explicit evidence (does the CVR have more to tell?) of deliberate action or pre-planning this is a horrifically complicated investigation as there will always be plausible deniability on all sides and different courts/judges will rule on it very differently based on their own biases and views
in the absence of explicit evidence (does the CVR have more to tell?) of deliberate action or pre-planning this is a horrifically complicated investigation as there will always be plausible deniability on all sides and different courts/judges will rule on it very differently based on their own biases and views
I don't think you can or will effectively prove whether it was intentional or some kind of an action slip, and by which pilot.
I think the accident report will be able to very clearly and with no reasonable doubt show that the switches were physically moved.
From the article:
The alternative is
too awful for them to contemplate
: that one of the pilots murdered hundreds of people as collateral damage in a suicide.
Because the aft flight recorder was destroyed, investigators cannot retrieve the one piece of information that it alone contained – the moment it stopped working, which might have provided a vital clue about a fire or electrical failure in the moments before the crash.
The aft EAFR was substantially damaged and could not be downloaded
through conventional means.
The CPM was opened to inspect the memory card. The damage was extensive.
Last edited by Someone Somewhere; 24th January 2026 at 20:32 .
Subjects
APU
Action slip
CVR
DFDR
EAFR
Electrical Failure
Engine Failure (All)
FDR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
NTSB
Preliminary Report
RAT (All)
RAT (Deployment)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 25, 2026, 09:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12026797
The responses to the article are very interesting. And pretty much go to reaffirming my point about vested interests.
it was the same with the MH370 accident.
If you’re American or worked/flew Boeing aircraft you’re more likely to blame the pilots. If you’re Indian or Asian you’re more likely to blame the aircraft.
Unless someone produces a smoking gun, which is very unlikely, then the causes will always be up for debate.
Here in the U.K. we had the Chinook crash, where the pilots were instantly blamed. It makes me very uncomfortable to blame one individual for mass murder without a smoking gun as such.
it was the same with the MH370 accident.
If you’re American or worked/flew Boeing aircraft you’re more likely to blame the pilots. If you’re Indian or Asian you’re more likely to blame the aircraft.
Unless someone produces a smoking gun, which is very unlikely, then the causes will always be up for debate.
Here in the U.K. we had the Chinook crash, where the pilots were instantly blamed. It makes me very uncomfortable to blame one individual for mass murder without a smoking gun as such.
We had some discussions over in 787 GEnx loss of aircraft data will result in engine shutdown which I won't repeat in full, but there doesn't seem to be any credible way to get that result from a system failure without dealing in one-in-a-quadrillion events. The monitoring channel going to the RDCs and EAFRs is independent from the relay logic that closes the fuel valves.
Most of the "we'll never know" accidents don't have full FDR and CVR data. This one does.
I'm usually not on Boeing's side but the evidence is pretty overwhelming here.
Subjects
CVR
EAFR
Engine Failure (All)
Engine Shutdown
FDR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
GEnx (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 27, 2026, 06:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12027795
B787, EAFR and RIPS.
I know: On the B787, the two EAFRs (front and rear), only the front EAFR, is self-powered by the RIPS (Recorder Independent Power Supply) for 10 minutes in the event of a power failure.
Therefore,cockpit voices and sounds are recorded by the front EAFR
even in the event all 28VDC power failure.
Therefore,cockpit voices and sounds are recorded by the front EAFR
even in the event all 28VDC power failure.
Subjects
EAFR
RIPS
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 27, 2026, 06:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12027802
I know: On the B787, the two EAFRs (front and rear), only the front EAFR, is self-powered by the RIPS (Recorder Independent Power Supply) for 10 minutes in the event of a power failure.
Therefore,cockpit voices and sounds are recorded by the front EAFR
even in the event all 28VDC power failure.
Therefore,cockpit voices and sounds are recorded by the front EAFR
even in the event all 28VDC power failure.
Subjects
EAFR
RIPS
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.