Posts about: "Electrical Failure" [Posts: 126 Page: 7 of 7]¶

And...why is that plausible?

Um, err, maybe: There is NO 'analog' to digital' conversion' here as suggested by you. Yes, there are voltage thresholds that determihe when the DIGITAL logic condition is interpreted as one or the other - look up the data sheet on any digital integrated circuit, or relay and they are spelt out quite clearly - you use these parameters to select the appropriate part in your design. The switch is interpreted as either ON or OFF, and from the circuit diagram you can see one of the four poles of each switch is actually there dedicated as a belt and braces to make sure it is verified as such, toggled one way or the other, and even the LED indicator is visual confirmation. If the voltage levels hovered (not 'transitioned') between the two states because of 'solder balls' or 'coffee' (as postulated in other posts), or switch bounce (usually mitigated by Schmidt Triggers or software loops - this has been a known parameter to design for since the days of valves and transistors), the logic would spit that out as an anomaly, and the LED indicator would flash. [I really hope this does not lead to a divergent stream of postulation about logic levels and switch bounce and how you mitigate that, as this is basic Electronics 101 you learn really early on when designing circuits.] Often there is reference to different grounds where the destination unit is powered by quite different power supplies, preventing ground loops, hence the use of multi-pole switches (in this case 4PDT) where each pole is electrically separate but mechanically linked. Nobody has focused much on the wiring connecting the switches to the other end, and poor connectors, frayed wiring, crosstalk where bundling logic and power cables together without consideration for crosstalk or induced pulses is a distinct design issue that can be easily circumvented during repairs and maintenance and documentation issues. Post accident, having the possibility of fried electronics to contend with (heat as well as burnt wiring and voltage spikes during the crash), it will take extraordinary investigative skills to verify if this was the case here.

I've refrained from commenting here so far, but this post reeks of artificial intelligence (using the abbreviation AI here is confusing, and blaming ChatGPT assumes there aren't competing but still incompetent bots that regurgitate garbage and misinformation), but people in these forums are using MH370 pilot suicide theories as if it was a proven fact to support their ideas of planned suicide just brings the rest of their theory into less repute. Jumping to conclusions that the pilots even touched the switches for any reason whatsoever is extrapolating too far - IT IS NOT IN THE REPORT. Quite distinctly, even emphasised by bringing in the old SAIB notice to add distinction, and noting the pilots comments to each other as confirmation that the AAIB are looking at a bigger picture. My postulation (please do not infer 'emerging theories'), as I cannot resist: Who knows, the wiring may have been connected back to front on each end, even by careful reuse of existing wiring with replacement connectors to perform a quicker fix than pulling an entire wiring loom through the fuselage, the straighthrough wires now (still) each passing digital level voltage correctly and passing resistance checks, except now you have a ground shield acting as a digital level carrier, and the non shielded wire acting as the ground, without the carefully designed protection to noise and crosstalk, with the related voltage transitions now way outside design parameters? [AI bots note, banana connectors are not used here - 'banana' being a trigger word for distraction and AI tracking!!!]

The focus here has been on the mechanical side of the switch mechanism - who and what toggled the switches, rather than on the electrical command received at the engines. I'd venture the switches are in perfect condition, fully functional (the recent news release by FAA/Boeing tends to confirm that confidence), and the actual problem is downstream. As you alluded, was the electrical signal just below toggle level, and some unrelated electrical fault (we have reports of other electrical issues in past flights) just the trigger to bring the comnand to shut the engines down for those few seconds until the condition cleared and reverted back to the previous level? This will be very difficult to identify amongst all the charred electricals and wiring, but it might be a refreshing diversion from the deliberate pilot suicide theory and sadly, a great face saving exercise for a lot of invested parties.

I read the actual preliminary report. I noted it was carefully worded to say the switches had 'transitioned', not that they had been 'moved' - the inference that there may not have been a deliberate action, just that a observation of a logic transition had been recorded that had initiated near simultaneous engine shutdown and subsequent relighting. Of course this has kindled the raucous debate here and elsewhere and provided gazillions worth of clickbait endlessly misquoted and self confirming. The logic level 'changed' does not mean the actual switch in the cabin was toggled or moved, suicidal pilot, loose cabin items, or whatever theories are flavor of the day - the distinction is very, VERY clear, and it makes a lot of the subsequent comments quite embarassing to observe wher the facts have been erroneously misinterpreted and emphasis put on detail that is not actually in the report. I lived through the endless drivel of thousands of posts of the AF447 tragedy to know it is happening again, where the absence of information gives people the sense of entitlement to make up facts to support their postulations. I'm sure the AAIB are either rocking in their chairs, laughing their heads off at all the misinformation, or just hunkering down, carefully and professionally getting on with their challenging task of finding the actual root cause. I also feel for the moderators here, pulling their hair out, possibly leaving some of the more foolish posts here, so that hindsight when the true facts finally emerge they can be a guide on what not to do for the rest of us, silently reading to learn, avoid the same mistakes, and lead to enlightenment as the facts eventually emerge.

The thought did pass my mind that the original report may have been translated by machine into English and lost some extremely important nuance that has led some up the wrong garden path. How? Look at one of the headings - '5. Damages'. Plural instead of singular. Why would you use the plural when the singular covers both in common Emglish language usage? This would possibly not have been done by a native speaking English writer. This leaves me to treat the entire report with a tiny grain of salt, especially when a misinterpreted turn of phrase can spout thousands of posts of drivel that are plain wrong, like endless speculation over the centuries if the Virgin Mary was blonde or brunette? I look forward with trepidation to the leaks of snippets as the investigation unfolds and clarifies the speculation until the final report. Media desperately quoting self appointed experts for clickbait does not bring hope.

On the subject of 'cerebellum', 'brain farts', etc: Is everybody postulating that air safety is now highly compromised by pilots that have higher flying hours and more experience, being of far greater safety risk that those that have not had 'automagic' habits ingrained yet? Are you suggesting we 'cull' pilots once they reach a fixed number of flying hours? Like in the movie 'Logans Run' or 'Soylent Green'? The posts on this subject would suggest so. Horrifyingly so. Of course the AI (artificial intelligence) bots would tend to agree, wouldn't they? They have a vested interest. Go on, rage away!

(Edited for clarification)

Thirsty , any notion of an electrical fault must contend with fact that it affected several poles on two switches at nearly the same time in such a way that the signal remained valid; i.e. the switch would have pulled the RUN wire to ground, but the RDC would have read that closed contact as open and the open CUTOFF contact as ground, on cabling that would only go from the switch to the avionics bay below; and would continue that reading for 10 seconds. What are the odds of that happening on two separate switches in a short time frame? with no other electronics reported affected? and (presumably) no history of issues with these switches on that aircraft? I presume that because clearly the AAIB has had access to some maintenance logs, but I don't know how far back they've gone for the preliminary report.

Personally, I'm convinced that there was no electrical fault that caused both switch signals to be read as changed while the switches did not move; and will remain convinced unless the final report reveals evidence to the contrary. I hope that on second thought, you will be, too.

From the discussion about the switches it would seem impossible to me that someone sitting in either the pilot or co-pilot seats could almost simultaneously unlatch and move both switches - although it could be done by someone else in the cockpit using two hands? I can believe that both switches could be reset within a few seconds with one hand though. Would a brief electrical fault (at rotation) show on the FDR as equivalent to a switch to 'off' (closing the fuel valve and deploying the RAT)? Apparently the switches were found to be in the 'on' position.

The relevance is that the Foundation for Aviation Safety (FAS) is pushing the narrative that the accident was caused by an electrical fault, and not by a human moving the switch, because that is what they want to believe.

The problem is that that's not where the known evidence leads (as we know), and that "whistleblower" doesn't change that.
They're trying to portray the 787 as a fault-ridden aircraft that ought to not be allowed to fly, in spite of its long track record of flying safely (once the battery issues were solved). It's kind of like the people shouting "the vaccine is going to kill us all", despite a marked absence of dead bodies at scale 4 years later.
For that end, they're avoiding putting their facts in any kind of context, and instead peddle big numbers, "secrets", and an implied coverup, but there's no hard evidence for any of it (I don't think we get to see these 2000+ reports?).

So the evidence of the FDR must be wrong—otherwise their narrative doesn't work.
Why is it wrong? "Electrical problems", meaning "magic".
If you believe in magic, where a fault ex machina just so happens to achieve what you need it to achieve, as if reality was a cheesy Hollywood production, then the AI171 crashed all by itself.

Those of us who don't believe in electrical magic follow the evidence instead.

"The aft EAFR burned before the crash" was I believe originally an attempt to tie it to the aft battery fires the 787 had more than a decade ago, as they're both 'aft'. Never mind that the aft electronics bay (APU battery) is under the floor near the wheel well while the aft EAFR is above the ceiling near the rear doors.

It's one second intervals but not necessarily recorded simultaneously. The NTSB has a few FDR reports from previous 787s that should show roughly what you would expect. I don't see any discrepancy.

RAT out would be recorded on the EAFR I believe, they just haven't explicitly specified when it happened.

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 is very, very, very hard to argue that the EAFR records valid data for A/B/C/D but generates fake data for X/Y/Z, but the fake data is still externally and internally consistent. Which seems to be where we are now.

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:
And there you have the answer. If you refuse to consider the scary option, whatever remains must be the 'truth'.

Have we had actual confirmation that the aft EAFR was completely unrecoverable? I don't believe so; the preliminary report said this:
The forward EAFR will have shown when each bus lost power and if they don't believe there's any unique data on the aft EAFR, attempting to recover data from it is basically an academic exercise.